JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.:---Rule taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

2. Invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in this petition the order dated 28-2-1990 passed by the member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (for short, the Tribunal) confirming the order of the Tahsildar restoring the suit field to the respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of the Tahsildar by which compensation was determined and remanding the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry in relation to value of the improvement made by the petitioner in the suit field and then to pass fresh order to that extent is under challenge.

3. Brief facts sofar as relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under:

The deceased Rambhau Durga Sarate is the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 2-9/5 admeasuring 3.25 acres and Survey No. 2-9/1 area 7.25 acres, total area 10.50 acres. This land was sold by the deceased by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23-4-1974 to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/-. The deceased Rambhau respondent No. 1 filed application on 13-10-1976 before the Tahsildar with the contention that he belongs to Gond by caste which is a Scheduled Tribe Caste. The land was transferred in favour of the petitioner who is non-tribal, and therefore, the deceased claimed restoration of the suit field. The Tahsildar held enquiry into the proceedings which was numbered as Revenue Case No. 109/59(13)/82-83 and recorded finding that the deceased was entitled for the restoration of the suit land to him in view of the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short the Restoration Act) and consequently held that under section 4 of the Restoration Act the suit fields, the description of which is mentioned in the order were purchased by the petitioner Bapurao Telrandhe in contravention of the provisions of the above Act and should be restored to the tribal deceased Rambhau subject to payment of the amount of compensation which is determined therein. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order had carried the appeal before the Tribunal which was registered as Appeal No. 229/B-109/89. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly and sofar as the order of Tahsildar restoring the suit filed to deceased respondent No. 1 is concerned, has confirmed the said order but set aside the order of the Tahsildar by which the compensation was determined and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry in respect of determination of the value of the improvement made by the petitioner in the suit field. This order is under challenge in this petition.

4. Mr. Darda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that deceased Rambhau had entered into an agreement of sale of the suit land with the petitioner on 7-1-1972 for consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and on receiving an earnest amount of Rs. 1,500/- the possession of the land was also delivered on the same day. It was agreed upon between the parties that the permission from the Competent Authority would be obtained for the said transaction, and therefore, application was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10-4-1974 and thereafter the Sub-Division Officer granted permission for the said transaction of sale. He further contended that thereafter the sale deed was executed by the deceased Rambhau in favour of the petitioner on 23-4-1974 and the sale deed was duly registered. Mr. Darda further contended that the said permission was granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer in view of the provisions of section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (For short the M.L.R. Code) and therefore, it cannot be said that the transaction of sale was in contravention of the provisions of the Restoration Act. He further contended that the deceased Rambhau did not prove during the enquiry that he belongs to Gond Scheduled Tribe, and therefore, the transaction is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document