R.G. DESHPANDE, J. :---These two petitions are being dealt with by this common judgment as the point involved is the same. It also relates to the lands belonging to same respondent who had sold the lands to the non-tribals and, then, had applied for restoration of both the lands. For the purpose of clarity, it would be better to narrate the facts of both the cases separately.

2.In Writ Petition No. 232/1985, the petitioner - Sheikh Mohammed Sk. Gulab, is the purchaser of field Survey No. 125/A with an area of 3 acres and 38 gunthas, situated at village Mokadi Tq. Hingoli of which, the original owner happened to be one Gangaram Raghoji Bele, the respondent No. 2. This respondent No. 2 -Gangaram sold the above-said field to one Rama Dudhaji Kharat and Dudhaji Bhagwanrao Kharat, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the present petition. Subsequently, the said respondent Nos. 3 and 4 sold the same field to the present petitioner - Sk. Mohammed s/o Sk. Gulab. The sale-deed between Dudhaji and the petitioner is dated 10-6-1975, whereas the sale deed between the respondent No. 3 - Dudhaji and respondent No. 2 - Gangaram is dated 29-5-1974.

3.After coming into force of the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, Gangaram Raghoji Bele, the respondent No. 2 did apply to the Tahsildar under the provisions of the said Act for restoration of field in question to him on the ground that he belonged to Scheduled Tribes and is covered by the provisions of the Act in question. The application was registered as Case No. 75/Adiwasi/84 on the file of learned Tahsildar, Hingoli, who had issued notices to the concerned parties on 15th December 1978, as to why the land should not be restored to Gangaram Raghoji Bele, who claimed to be the tribal and whose name is included in the list of the Scheduled Tribes.

4.As regards Writ Petition No. 233/1985, it relates to land Survey No. 1 of village Lingdari, Tq. Hingoli with an area of 9 acres 29 gunthas. The respondent No. 2 - Gangaram Raghoji Bele, in this petition also, happened to be the original owner of land Survey No. 1 referred to above. This respondent No. 2 - Gangaram sold the land in question to Rama Dudhaji Kharat and Dudhaji Bhagwanrao Kharat, the petitioners herein, on 25-2-1971. The original owner - Gangaram in this matter also, applied to the Tahsildar, Hingoli for restoration of the land in question to him in pursuance of the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the purpose of brevity).

5.The Tahsildar, Hingoli, in the above-said matters did issue notices to the transferees as to why the field survey in question should not be restored back to respondent No. 2 - Gangaram Raghoji Bele, as he was the person who could be said to be the beneficiery of the provisions of the Act in question. On notices, the parties appeared before the Tahsildar, Hingoli in the proceedings which were registered as Case No. 75/Adiwasi/84 and 78 ADWS/84 i.e., Gangaram v. Rama Dudhaji and others; and in another case, Gangaram v. Rama Dhuhaji and others, in which, Sk. Mohammed Sk. Gulab is also a party-respondent. During the course of proceedings before the Tahsildar, initially Gangaram the applicant did come forward with a case that since he was not in a position to cultivate the lands personally, he did not want the same to be restored. On the basis of this statement, the learned Tahsildar dropped the proceedings which were going on before him by his order dated 7th May 1979 in both the cases.

6.Since the Tahsildar dropped the proceedings, the same was suo motu reviewed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad under the provisions of section 7 of the Act. The learned Additional Commissioner before whom the matter was taken up, the case was registered as TNC/Adiwasi/R/74. The learned Additional Commissioner who dealt with the matter, having found the incorrectness in the order of the Tahsildar, observed th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document