JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, rule made returnable forthwith.

2. This group of petitions raises a common challenge regarding the right of the Divisional Commissioner to reopen the inquiry already concluded by the Collector under the provisions of section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (the Act for, short), by invoking the powers under section 7 of the said Act. By the said impugned notices dated 13th August, 1996 the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division at Nasik has proposed a suo motu revision of the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector after about twenty years. It is contended that the judgment and order passed by the Deputy Collector had become final and the impugned show cause notices proposing to reopen the settled position are illegal and such powers cannot be allowed to be invoked after a gap of about twenty years or after a reasonably long period.

The relevant provisions of sections 3, 4 and 7 of the said Act read, as under :---

"3.(1) Where due to transfer -

(a) the land of a Tribal-transferor is held by a non-Tribal-transferee, or

(b) the lan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document