JUDGMENT - GAVAI B.R., J.: - The petitioner by way of present petition challenges the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 24-10-1991 in Revenue Appeal No. 67/B-109/91 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kelapur vide which the land admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas was directed to be resorted to the respondent No. 2 herein.

2.The short background giving rise to the present petition is as under:-

That the respondent No. 2 herein made an application dated 21-1-1988 to respondent No. 3 Tahsildar claiming therein that the petitioner was in possession of Survey No. 35/A admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas owned by the father of the respondent No. 2. The said application was made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short). The said application was replied by the petitioner on the ground that since 1964 the father of the petitioner was his tenant and that under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act") the ownership was conferred upon the father of the petitioner. Purchase price was accordingly deposited. The purchase certificate was issued to the petitioner on 7-8-1986. Vide order dated 19-4-1989 the respondent No. 3 held that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to restoration of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approaches this Court by way of the present petition.

3.Heard Shri A.A. Naik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. N.S. Jog, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri S.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 4.

4.Shri Naik, learned Counsel for petitioner, has raised four grounds in support of the claim of the petitioner. Firstly, Shri Naik submits that the transfer in question was under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and that since the said transfer was a statutory transfer, it is not covered by section 2(i) of the said Act and as such, the impugned orders are not in accordance with law. In support of the submission, he relies on the judgment of this Court in the case (Puna Arjun Mali and another v. Mana Maka Bhil and others)1, reported in 1992(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (A.B.)662 wherein this Court has held that the statutory transfer is not covered by section 2(i) of the said Act.

5.Secondly, he submits that the application itself was barred by limitation and, therefore, the lower authorities ought not to have entertained the said application. According to him since the application was made in the year 1988 and since the date of commencement of the Act is 1-11-1975 and that the limitation prescribed at the relevant time was only three years, the application was beyond limitation by almost 10 years. He submits that the amendment to the said Act which was made in the year 1990 which enhanced the limitation to 30 years will not save the said application. According to him, the rights of the parties will have to be determined on the basis of the law as it existed on the date of the application. In support of this submission, he relies on the judgment of privy Council in the case of (Mathukumalli Ramayya and others v. Uppalapati Lakshmayya)2, reported in A.I.R. 1942(29) P.C. 54 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Shanti Misra)3, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 237.

6.Thirdly, he submits that the said Act is applicable only for the transfers which are effected between 1-4-1957 and 6-7-1974. According to him, the purchase certificate was issued on 7-8-1986. He thus submits that the date of the transfer under Tenancy Act would be 7-8-1986 and as such,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document