SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1715

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 14, 2009
ZUNKABAI W/o LATE MANGU KUMRE
VS.
KANTABEN W/o LATE SHANTILAL PATEL
A. H. Joshi, J.
W. P. No. 18 of 2000

The statutory authority under the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, is not competent to defeat the purpose and aims of the Act.

Headnote:

Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 - Tribal Land - Restoration of Land to Tribal Transferors - The court held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision to set aside the order of restoration of land to the tribal transferors was not in line with the aims and objects of the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The court emphasized that the statutory authority under the Act was not competent to defeat its purpose, and therefore allowed the Writ Petition, directing the Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribals within six months.

Fact of the Case:

The land of tribals was transferred to non-tribals and later restored by the Tahsildar. The non-tribal transferors filed an appeal challenging the restoration order, which was ultimately allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision was not in line with the aims and objects of the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. It allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribals within six months.

Issues: The issues revolved around the restoration of tribal land, the competence of the statutory authority under the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, and the compassionate considerations in the decision-making process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the statutory authority under the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, was not competent to defeat its purpose and aims. It held that the decision to set aside the order of restoration was not in line with the statutory framework and the sufferance of the tribal transferors.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribals within six months from the date of receipt of the Writ of the Court.

JUDGMENT

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by original land owner tribals.

( 2 ) THE land of tribals transferred to non-tribals was restored by Tahsildar by Order dated 24th October, 1975.

( 3 ) THE order was not executed for a long time.

( 4 ) THE non-tribal transferors filed an appeal before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal challenging the order of restoration. It appears that what was challenged was a notice of delivery of possession, and, in fact, the order brought into scrutiny is order dated 24th October, 1975, by which restoration was ordered, which had attained finality by failure to file appeal against the said order.

( 5 ) THE Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was kind and Courteous enough for condoning the delay in order to do substantive justice, and ultimately allowed the appeal, and has set aside the order of restoration of land to the tribal transferors.

( 6 ) THE Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal based its order on grounds, namely:- (a) The land was fallow five years prior to transfer. (b) The tribal transferors stated on oath that they cannot cultivate land and that the agreement of transfer was made on free will and without any coercion etc. (c) Tribal transferors could not come forward to take possession of the property.

( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the order setting aside the order of restoration, present Writ Petition is filed by tribal transferors.

( 8 ) THE contents of the petition do clarify and reiterate with no ambiguity that the tribal transferors and their family members are not just willing, but are keen to have the land restored.

( 9 ) THE order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal seems to have been based on compassion to a non-tribal than compassion to a party whose sufferance, and compassion towards whom had fructified into a statutory enactment.

( 10 ) IT was not open and available for any statutory authority exercise powers and jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled tribes Act, 1974, to undo the aims and objects and the very purpose of enacting of the said Act and constituting the authorities thereunder. An authority constituted under the said Act was not competent to defeat the purpose thereof.

( 11 ) THE Writ Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of Prayer Clauses (i) and (ii) with a direction to Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribals within six months from the date of receipt of Writ of this Court. Petition allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top