A.B. Naik, J.

1. It is not disputed that the petitioner has purchased land from respondent No. 3 who is tribal. The transaction in question is in between tribal and non-tribal. On the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment Act), 1974 amending Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar to restore the possession to the tribal. There was one round of litigation which has reached this Court in Special Civil Application No. 135/1978. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court (S. C. Pratap, J, as then he was) on 5th October 1984 who remanded the matter. As stated above, the suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Additional Tahsildar, Sakri under the provisions of Section 36(2) proviso and issued notice to the tribal and non-tribal. The parties appeared before the Tahsildar, Sakri. The Tahsildar, recorded statement of tribal transferor and non-tribal transferee. The Tahsildar considered the statements of the tribal transferor and non-

tribal-transferee and the revenue record. He found that the name of the petitioner was included in the land vide Mutation Entry No. 7 on 1st June 1968. On the basis of the evidence produced before him, the Tahsildar recorded a finding that the transferor is a tribal and land in question is transferred before the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Lands (Amendment) Act, 1974 and, as such, the transaction was vitiated by the said provision and, therefore, he ordered that the land Gut No. 52 situated at Jirapur should be taken from the possession of the non-tribal and be restored to the tribal, free from all encumbrances as per the provisions of Section 36 of the Code.

2. 2. The non-tribal/transferee fifed appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("Tribunal" in short), being Appeal No. 9/1985. The Tribunal heard the parties and confirmed the finding recorded by the Tahsildar, Sakri. The Tribunal recorded the finding that the Tahsildar has properly followed the legal procedure as provided under the Maharashtra Restoration of lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and having heard the parties in person and affording sufficient opportunity to them, the finding that was recorded came to be complied. The Tribunal held that the land was transferred in contravention of the provisions of Section 36 of the Code. Hence the Tribunal confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal by the judgment and order dated 16th December 1986.

3. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal (Camp : Dhule) the present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. 4. Shri Ajay Magre, learned Adv. i/by Shri R. B. Raghuwanshi, for the petitioner, contended that the land was purchased in the year 1968 when there was no restriction for purchase of

the land. He contended that the tribal was not in position physically and financially to cultivate the land and by paying the market price of the land to the Tribal is purchased by the petitioner. After purchase the non-tribal/transferee has invested his life earning in improving the land and its fertility: Therefore, he submitted that the transaction which is now being invalidated was effected much prior to the Amendment Act No. XXXV of 1974. He, therefore, submitted that the Tahsildar, Sakri has no jurisdiction to re-open the transaction after a considerable long time. He submitted that even though it is permissible for the authorities to take action, the action should have been taken with all promptitude and expediency. He, therefore, submitted that belated action on behalf of the Tahsildar, Sakri in exercising his suo motu powers conferred on him by Section 36(2) proviso, thus, unwanted and totally uncalled for. He submitted that the tribal- transferor has not filed any application within the time specified but ignoring this aspect, the Tahsildar, proceeded to restore the