1. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 26th October, 1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Jalgaon in REV.TRB.48 OF 1989.

2. The facts of the case which are incorporated in the writ petition are as under:

The suit land in Survey No.44/1 and 44/2 admeasuring 1 hector and 17 R. assess as Rs.9-31 paise, situated at village Kochur, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The suit land was previously held and owned by some of the respondents and that the deceased Gundu Ramu Pandit had purchased the suit land from the respondents in the year, 1963, for a consideration of Rs.7000/- under a registered sale deed and from the said consideration the respondents bought another big piece of land. It is further case of the petitioner that when his father purchased the suit land, it was barren, dry land and that he himself and his father spent more than Rs.20,000/- and converted the dry land into a Bagayat land.

3. The Assistant Collector, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon started a suo motu enquiry under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Restoration Act). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of the Restoration Act by way of filing writ petition before this Court and stay was granted to the further proceedings before the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. It is further case of the petitioner that the validity of the Restoration Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in Lingappa’s case and thereafter, stay granted by this Court was effected and further proceedings were directed to be started. It is further case of the petitioner that in the mean while there was amendment to the Restoration Act and the definition of Collector was enlarged and Tahsildar was also empowered to conduct the proceedings under the Restoration Act. Thereafter the matter was transferred to the Tahsildar, Raver, which was numbered as 112 of 1975 and after recording the statements of both the parties, the Tahsildar passed order on 30.4.1986 and allowed the claim of the respondents and further directed that the suit land may be restored to the respondents. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Tahsildar, Raver, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No.REV-TRB-86 OF 1986, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the said appeal and remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon for holding fresh enquiry. After remand, the Sub Divisional Officer recorded statement of the respondent Hasan Nathu Tadvi and the statement of the petitioner and thereafter came to the conclusion that though the respondents are following the custom, usages of Muslims and they are known as Tadvi Pathan and Tadvi Musalman, they are in fact tribal and therefore, they are entitled for restoration of the suit land.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 17th June, 1989 in Adivasi Case No.17 of 1987, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 6 of the Restoration Act being Appeal No.REV.TRB.48 OF 1989 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. It is the contention of the petitioner that though the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has accepted the contention of the petitioner, instead of allowing the appeal, remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon. Hence, this writ petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the finding recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and submitted that the contentions which were raised by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have been accepted. It is further submitted that the respondents/applicants belong to Tadvi Muslim / Tadvi Pathan community and the said community is or the caste is not recognized as a tribal community. The learned Counsel for the petitioner