Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.03 seconds)Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs Shehnaz Karim Shaikh & Others on 11 July, 2000
In this
regard reference can be made to the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in
Karim Abdul Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J.
555 and especially paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof.
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs Jagdish on 5 January, 2001
He also referred to the decisions in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The
Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Dr Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs.
Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 and the decisions of the Full Bench in Karim Abdul
Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 555 as well as
in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 868 in
support of his contentions. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders
were liable to be set aside.
Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 7 May, 2010
He also referred to the decisions in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The
Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Dr Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs.
Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 and the decisions of the Full Bench in Karim Abdul
Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 555 as well as
in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 868 in
support of his contentions. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders
were liable to be set aside.
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
After referring to
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in
State of Maharashtra vs. Milind 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 1 it was observed that even if
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 01:45:03 :::
WP-1701-19 8/9
by birth a person is born in a tribal community unless that community is
recognised as a Scheduled Tribe, such person cannot get the status of a
tribal. The transactions in question were dated 22/06/1969 and
20/03/1970. As the transferor belonged to "Naikda" tribe which tribe was
recognised as a 'Scheduled Tribe' by virtue of Act No.108 of 1976 from
27/07/1977, it was held that the transferor was not entitled to restoration
of the transferred land.
Lachmanna Malanna Alurwar vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal And Ors. on 18 November, 1991
It was
his submission that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench has been
::: Uploaded on - 31/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 01/02/2020 01:45:03 :::
WP-1701-19 4/9
consistently followed by various learned Single Judges in Lachmanna Malanna
Alurwar vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and ors. 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1139, Gopal
s/o Jianna Madrewar vs. Poshatti s/o Bhojanna Khurd and ors. 1997(1) ALL MR
341, Sheikh Mohammed s/o Sheikh Gulab vs. The Additional Commissioner,
Aurangabad Division and ors. 1997(1) ALL MR 680, Shirvram s/o Jairam and anr.
vs. Tukaram s/o Raghoji Aage and anr. 1997 (1) Mh.L.R. 27 and Chandrabhagabai
w/o Dhondiba Gutte (died LRs) Godavaribai w/o Laxman Gutte and ors. vs. Ladva
s/o Narayan Sidarwad and ors. 2006(1) Mh.L.J. 485. Considering this
consistent view it was clear that the land in question was not liable to be
restored in favour of the respondent No.1 as 'Andh' was recognised as
Scheduled Tribe after the transfer of the land. He further submitted that
another Division Bench in Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar and ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra 1993(2) Mh.L.J. 1168 has however held that irrespective of the
date on which a tribe is recognised as such and included in the Scheduled
Tribes Order, 1950 such tribal transferor would be entitled to be restored the
lands transferred by him. Though Section 36-A of the Code has been held to
be prospective, the provisions of Section 3(1) of the said Act have been held
to apply to past transactions.
Section 6 in The Maharashtra Restoration Of Lands To Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Mahadeolal Kanodia vs The Administrator-General Ofwest ... on 20 April, 1960
He also referred to the decisions in Mahadeolal Kanodia vs. The
Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SC 936, Dr Vijay Laxmi Sadho vs.
Jagdish (2001) 2 SCC 247 and the decisions of the Full Bench in Karim Abdul
Rehman Shaikh vs. Shehnaz Karim Shaikh and ors. 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 555 as well as
in Vinayak Hari Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 868 in
support of his contentions. It was thus submitted that the impugned orders
were liable to be set aside.
1