JUDGMENT - P.S. BRAHME, J.:---Petitioner approached this Court to challenge the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Amravati in Appeal No. 7/LND -31/1988-89 dated 30th March, 1994.

2. The Additional Commissioner observed that as a special case the sale of the land for repayment of bank loan be deemed to be with permission of the Collector and State Government, and regularised accordingly. He further observed that the case be transferred to the Collector with direction as above.

3. The subject matter of the dispute is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 268/3 (Gat No. 679) admeasuring 2 hectares and 12 acres, admittedly owned by the petitioner Punjaji Halde who claimed to be belonging to a tribal. Admittedly he had taken loan of Rs. 1,500/- on 26-8-1965 from the Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, Buldhana i.e. respondent No. 3 and for that the said land was mortgaged with the bank as security for the loan. Since the loan was not repaid, respondent No. 3 bank initiated action under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and auction sale of the land was conducted on 9-3-1978. In the public auction the land was sold to respondent No. 4 for a consideration of Rs. 720/-. Thereafter, the possession of the land was given to respondent No. 4. In the year 1985 the petitioner filed application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malkapur with a plea that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the land should be restored to him. As per the provisions of section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Sub-Divisional Officer conducted inquiry in Revenue Case No. LND -31-1-1985-86 for recovery of the land from non-tribal purchaser i.e. respondent No. 4 and its restoration to the petitioner. He passed the order on 12-5-1986 and held that the said sale was invalid. That order came to be challenged in appeal before the resident Deputy Collector, Amravati, who confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malkapur by his order dated 17-2-1988. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by preferring second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati who by his order dated 5-5-1988 remanded the case to the Collector, Buldhana to examine as to why the post facto permission for auction sale of tribal land cannot be granted. The resident Deputy Collector, Amravati who heard the matter after remand, held that law does not provide for granting post facto sanction and by his order dated 26-6-1989 confirmed the earlier order dated 12-5-1986 holding that the auction sale was invalid for want of previous sanction as required, under the provisions of section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 took up the matter again before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati who passed the impugned order. That order is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

4. Heard Mr. Vaidya, learned Counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the provisions under sections 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code regarding seeking previous sanction for transferring land of tribal to a non tribal is for the safeguard of the interest of the tribal. It is mandatory that under the provisions of section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to seek prior permission or sanction for transferring the land owned by the tribal. He also pointed out that the transfer of the land by auction sale in pursuance of the execution of the award or decree is also covered in view of the proviso to section 36-A. It is therefore, submitted that for the transfer by auction sale as in the case before hand, the condition of granting prior sanction as required under sections 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was necessary and therefore, the Additional Commissioner was not within his rights to hold that it was a case of deemed sanction to regularise the transaction. He therefore, urged that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner should be set aside and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Offi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document