1. At the outset, learned Advocate Mr. Pudke for the petitioner states that the petitioner is remedyless, though the appeal is provided by law, as the Forum, namely Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is not constituted. Hence, by dispensing with alternate remedy, petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission-hearing.

2. The petitioner has urged in paras 12 to 15 certain points in support of petition, which read as follows:-

“12. Tahsildar failed to consider the order dated 30.9.1976 stated as above and therefore passed the impugned order dated 25.01.2007 which is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction.

“13. That, from perusal of the statement submitted by the Appellant Shri Kawadu Sakharam Uike, it is clearly seen that he was not willing to cultivate the suit land personally nor he was willing to pay such amount as the Collector/SDO/Tahsildar will fix according to provisions under the said Act.

“14. That, the learned Tahsildar has not issued any notice to the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity of hearing and also he was not even made party to the said proceedings and without that, the impugned order dated 25.1.2007 is passed by the Tahsildar, Saoli.

“15. That, the abovementioned order is passed on dated 30.09.1976. Therefore, the said order dated 30-09-1976 cannot be changed/amended/modified/reviewed/revised now by the Revenue authorities concerned after such a long time of about more than 31 years. In this regard the provisions u/s 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act 1974......

[copied from Ground Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 at page nos. 5 and 6 of the paper-book of Writ Petition].

OF RE-OPENING OWN ORDER, AUTHORITY, RES JUDICATA ETC.

3. Very opening paragraph of impugned order reveals that Tahsildar has received directions by communication dated 14th November, 2005, of re-opening the case. Thus, on what is apparent, this is a case of re-opening on the basis of directions received from Government who is entitled to suo moto revise the proceedings and pass orders.

4. Petitioner's contention that Tahsidlar has no jurisdiction to re-consider the matter his having once decided the same in favour of the purchaser by his order dated 30th June, 2006 seems to be a ground raised without adverting to the opening paragraph of impugned order.

5. Petitioner's contention that the tribal transferor has no right to make a fresh application, as fresh consideration would be barred by principles of res judicta is also misconceived in the light of the fact that proceedings are re-opened on the basis of directions.

6. It is seen from the noting, true copies whereof are placed on record, that the order of Tahsildar, and approval granted by Sub-Divisional Officer for closing the proceedings through order dated 30th June, 1976, discloses that Tahsildar has recorded a compound observation, namely the tribal is not ready to cultivate the land, and to refund the purchase price of Rs.5,000-00.

7. Clause [b] of Sub-section [4] of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 requires the Tahsidlar to order restoration on the condition that amount equal to 48 times the land revenue assessment or purchase price, whichever is less, alone can be ordered as a condition. Legality of order which was revised and case was re-opened.

s

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has replied in answer to the question of the Court that the land revenue assessment of the land in question is Rs.4-00. Its 48 times would be Rs.1632/-.

9. In any case, the direction to drop the proceedings because the tribal is not willing to pay or refund Rs.5,000-00 is, on the very face of it, contrary to the scheme of law, i.e., Section 3 [4] [b] referred to above, and on this sole ground, the Revisional Authority was undoubtedly within its power and jurisdiction to direct re-opening of the issue and disposal according to law. Re-opening the case after three years from the date of decisio