JUDGMENT - KANTHARIA H.H., J.:---The petitioner purchased agricultural lands admeasuring 17.3 gunthas out of Survey No. 24/2 of village Yevati, Tahsil Wani, district Yavatmal from respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No. 3 is the adoptive mother of respondent No. 4. The sale deed is of May 11, 1962 for a price of Rs. 3,000/-.

2. After the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the "Restoration Act") came into force, the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Wani (respondent No. 2) initiated suo motu proceedings for restoration of the said land to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 under section 3 of the Restoration Act. The petitioner resisted the suo motu proceedings by filing a written statement, inter alia, contending that the transferors i.e. respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not Tribals and that they did not belong to Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Explanation to section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Land Revenue Code").

3. Respondent No. 2 who heard the said suo motu proceedings, dismissed the petitioner's contention that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not the tribals observing that the petitioner did not produce the satisfactory evidence to show as to what other caste they belonged to. The second respondent accepted the claim of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that they belonged to Scheduled tribe being Pradhans on the basis of the Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate. The second respondent further held that the transfer was valid and the intention of the Restoration Act being to restore the lands to the Tribal transferors, the point raised by the petitioner deserved to be rejected. He accordingly by his order dated May 24, 1978 dismissed the petitioner's claim.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 6 of the Restoration Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur (the first respondent). In the said appeal the petitioner had substantially raised the same issue that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not the Tribals. However, the first respondent dismissed the appeal by an order dated November 19, 1985.

5. Therefore, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing the present writ petition.

6. In support of the writ petition. Mr. Parsodkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the caste of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 was declared to be Scheduled Tribe only in the year 1976 by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 which means that when the transaction of sale took place between the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not the members of Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, it could not be said that there was a transfer of land by a Tribal to non-tribal. Mr. Khamborkar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, controverted this submission of Mr. Parsodkar relying upon a decision of a Single Judge of this Court (H.W. Dhabe, J.) in the case of (Chhotelal Bansilal Awasthi v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1990 Mh.L.J. 766 and submitted that the crucial point is, whether a person defined as 'Scheduled Tribe' in the Restoration Act had made a transfer in the past during the period specified in the definition of the expression "transfer" given in section 2(1)(j) of the Restoration Act and if he had done so whether he would be entitled to restoration of his land under section 3 of the Restoration Act.

7. I am afraid, I am not able to persuade myself to agree with the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the simple reason that on the date when the sale transaction took place respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were not the Tribals and, therefore, this would not be a case of transfer of land by a Tribal to a non-tribal. Thus, "transfer" in relation to land means the transfer of land belonging to a Tribal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document