JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.:---This is a writ petition arising out of the proceeding under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, "the Restoration Act").

2. The respondent No. 3 is the heir of the deceased Tukaram. Tukaram was a tribal and had executed a sale-deed on 18-6-1957 in favour of the father of the respondent No. 4 viz. Vithal Nagoji Thakare, who was a non-tribal. It is the case of the petitioner that he was inducted as a tenant by the said Vithal upon the suit field and, therefore, was in possession of the same as his tenant. After the Restoration Act came into force the original respondent No. 3 Tukaram filed an application before the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal, under section 3 of the said Act claiming restoration of possession of the suit field form the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4. The original respondent No. 3 Tukaram claimed that he was bond by caste and was thus a tribal within the meaning of the said expression given in section 2(1)(j) of the Restoration Act. He, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to restoration of possession of the suit field. After notice, the Respondent No. 4 submitted that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the suit field and he did not have any objection for restoration the suit field to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner, thus alone contested the proceedings. He denied that the original respondent No. 3 was Gond by caste.

3. The original respondent No. 3 led evidence before the trial Court in support of his case. He also filed certificates from the Sarpanch and the Talathi of the village showing that he was Gond by caste and was, therefore, a tribal. The petitioner, however, did not lead any evidence in that regard. Since the transaction of the sale of the suit field was during the period specified  in the definition of the expression 'transfer' given in section 2(1)(i) of the Restoration Act, the learned trial Court held that the original respondent No. 3 was entitled to restoration of the suit field to him . He then determined the purchase price of the suit field in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Restoration Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, "the MRT"). The learned MRT, However, dismissed the appeal. He has, therefore, preferred the Instant writ petition in this Court.

4. The contention raised in this writ petition about the constitutional validity of the Restoration Act, stands concluded by the decision of this court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Lingappa v. Kalu Gonya)1, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 389. The said question is thus no more res integra in this petition. On merits, it is urged that on the date of the transaction which had taken place on 18-6-1957, the original respondent No. 3 although was Gond by caste, was living in Yavatmal District and was , therefore, not a Scheduled Tribe as per the Schedule relating to the State of Maharashtra under the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950, which was applicable at that time His submission thus is that the original respondent No. 3 was not a tribal transferor within the meaning of the Restoration Act since he was not a Scheduled tribe on the date of the transfer.

5. In appreciating the above submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it may be seen that the protection and/or the benefit granted by the Restoration Act to the tribal transferor is regulated by said Act. In other words, for the purposes of the said Act the persons who are considered as tribals are defined in the said Act. Section 2(1)(j) of the said Act which defines a "tribal" shows that according to it, a "tribal" means a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of the Explanation to section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short, "the Code") and includes his successor-in-interest also. It is thus clear that for the purpo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document