1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The Petitioners have purchased the lands, inter alia, under Survey No.239, bearing old Survey No.144 (Part) admeasuring 5 Acres and 30 Gunthas at village Malad, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai, from one Anandibai, the widow of one Budhiya Bhikhu Gadak. Budhiya was declared as tenant / purchaser of the said lands under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Tenancy Act). Budhiya died on 14.3.1968. A certificate under Section 32N of the Tenancy Act was issued in the name of Budhiya on 23.8.1969. Mutation Entry No.1269 came to be made in that respect in the name of Anandibai, his widow on 10.1.1971. Permission for sale under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act was granted to the widow on 25.7.1971. She entered into a conveyance with the Petitioners_ predecessor-in-title for a part of the land of her husband Budhiya, admeasuring 2 Acres 26 Gunthas on 25.5.1971. Mutation Entry No.1282 in that behalf came to be made on 8.6.1971. Thereafter Anandibai conveyed the balance part of the land admeasuring 3 Acres, 3 Gunthas to the Petitioners_ predecessor-in-title on 5.10.1973. Further Mutation Entry No.1375 was made on 8.11.1973 upon such conveyance.

3. Budhiya had purchased this land under Section 32G. He was, therefore, the agricultural tenant in respect of the land prior to the purchase. The purchase constituted his self acquired property. It was not a HUF property. His brother Dharma Bhikhu Gadak made a declaration in that behalf. Upon the death of Budhiya, his self acquired property, acquired under the provisions of the Tenancy Act devolved upon his widow by succession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Anandibai claimed to have title upon such succession in respect of the entire of the land as Class-I heir, Budhiya having left no issues.

4. In 1976, the relevant Collector made a suo motu inquiry under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (the Act). In that inquiry, he relied upon a certificate issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate certifying that Anandibai belonged to OBC community. This certificate came to be issued upon her Application, her statement and Affidavit, a certificate of the Special Executive Magistrate, Mumbai, and a certificate from one M.L.A. The Collector is stated to have also considered the declaration made by Dharma with regard to the self acquisition of the property by Budhdiya. The statement of Anandibai was that she was not a tribal but belonged to Bari community which was Other Backward Class (OBC) and not a Scheduled Tribe. In that statement she affirmed the sale of the land by her. The Collector passed his order on 5.3.1978 dropping the proceedings upon concluding that Anandibai did not belong to Adivasi community. The property was, therefore, not taken to have been transferred by a tribal to non-tribal to attract the provisions of the Act. It may be mentioned that at the relevant time the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not in existence for verification of caste certificates, it having been formed much later under the order of the Supreme Court.

5. This decision was essentially based upon the caste certificate. It will have to be seen whether the proceedings contemplated under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act could have been ultimately concluded in 1978 based upon such caste certificate.

6. It is contended by Mr.Madon on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 that this inquiry was suo motu initiated only after the two Deeds of Conveyance were executed and the property was shown to be transferred to the Petitioners. Upon such transfer, it had to be seen whether the lands were transferred by a tribal. The statement of Anandibai has been given after the conveyance on 4.8.1976. It shows the community to which she belonged, the work which she did and the fact that she was not a tribal. The caste certificate issued by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, Mumbai rel