1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in an appeal filed by the non-tribal, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribal.

2. The facts are as follows –

The petitioners are non-tribals while respondent no.2 to 4 are said to be tribals and it is alleged that they belong to Halbi tribe.

3. One Smt.Bayabai w/o Ramchandra Ambekar – the mother of the petitioner – had purchased the lands in question from one Doma Shrawan Pradhan and two others in the year 1962. Suo moto proceedings were started by the Tahsildar for restoration of the lands to the Tribals. The Tahsildar, however, had dropped those proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by order dated 5/5/1988, M.R.T. allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh enquiry. Accordingly, the Tahsildar made a fresh enquiry and he found that the respondents belonged to Halbi tribe and the transfer effected by the respondents in favour of the petitioner was in breach of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. He, therefore, directed the restoration of the said lands to the tribals. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the non-tribals i.e. the present petitioners, preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the Tahsildar and confirmed the order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is preferred.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1/State. None appears for other respondents.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly challenges the order passed by the courts below on the ground that there was no proper evidence with regard to the tribe status of respondent nos.2 to 4. He submits that the courts below were, in fact, bound to refer the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in order to verify genuineness of the Certificate submitted by the respondents with regard to the status as Halbi tribe. He submits that without such verification it was not proper on the part of the courts below to have held that respondent nos.2 to 4 belonged to Halbi tribe. He submitted that similar question had arisen before this court at Aurangabad Bench and it was found by the court that it was necessary for the authorities below to have referred the said caste certificate for scrutiny to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. This court observes as follows in the decision reported in 1995(2) Bom.C.R. 279 (Daulat Dhana Mali (deceased) by L.Rs. ..vs.. The State of Mah. and anrs.).

8. As regards the determination of the Tribe, if any, to which the respondent no.2 belonged and determination of the question, whether or not, he was a member of a Scheduled tribe, the contention of Mr.Choudhari, must hold good. The Assistant Collector had decided the matter as far back as on 25/10/1976 and the tribunal had decided it as far back as on 3rd January, 1977. At that time, the Government did not have any machinery for the verification of the tribal claims of the persons claiming to be tribals. This court as well as the Supreme Court, were required to deal with such matters points in a number of cases, as a result of which, the Scrutiny Committee has been appointed under the Directorate of Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune-I. That Committee consists of the experts who are well-acquainted with the subject. The aforesaid Committee is considered, presently, as the competent authority to verify the tribal claims, even though the Taluka Executive Magistrate and other authorities have issued certificates earlier in that context. The Certificate so issued by the other authorities are since required to be verified by the aforesaid Committee before a conclusion could be arrived at as to whe