S.B. SHUKRE, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard finally by consent.

4. This is a case which involves an objection taken to the transfer of land from a tribal, one Zitru Atram father of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to Natthu Laxman Rajurkar husband of respondent Nos. 6 and father of respondent Nos. 7 to 11 respectively. This land was subsequently purchased from Natthuji Rajurkar by the petitioners. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5, being the sons of Zitru Atram, original land owner and the tribal, took an objection under the provision of Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (in short “MRLS Tribes Act, 1974”) for cancellation of sale-deed and restoring the land to them, it having been transferred by Zitru Atram, in violation of the provision of Section 36A of this Act.

5. The question has been answered in favour of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 by the Tahsildar and the Competent Authority by passing an order on 9th February, 2016 which it was further confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal when it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 17.1.2018.

6. In the case of Tukaram S/o Laxman Gandewar vs. Piraji S/o Dharmaji Sidarwar, died through LRs. 1989 (3) Bom. C.R. 156, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the protection under the said Act is available to a tribal, who has been declared to be a tribal and included in the list of tribes under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe order, on the date of transfer of land. There is no quarrel about the principle so laid down in this case. But, the question is as to on what date the transfer of the subject land was effected and this can be answered by considering the admitted facts and the law applicable to them.

7. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the sale-deed of the subject land was executed by Zitru Atram in favour of Natthuji Rajurkar on 27.4.1965 and its registration was done on 29.4.1965. It is also not in dispute that Zitru Atram belongs to “Pardhan Tribe” which was not declared to be Scheduled Tribe till 29th April, 1965. It is also not in dispute that the tribe “Pardhan” was notified to be a Scheduled Tribe w.e.f. 29th April, 1965. In the light of these facts established on record, let us now consider the law relied upon by both sides.

8. Shri A.V. Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case pertaining to lease deed reported as Thakur Kishan Singh (dead) vs. Arvind Kumar, AIR 1995 SC 73 : 1994 (6) SCC 591.

9. Shri M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 5, the contesting parties relies upon the cases of Har Narain (dead) by LRs. vs. Mam Chand (dead) by LRs. and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 128 and Ghanshyam Sarda vs. Sashikant Jha, Director, M/s. J.K. Jute Mills Company Limited and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 599.

10. In the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (supra) considering the effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act upon a lease deed executed on one date and registered on a subsequent date with some gap in between, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is well established that a document so long as it is not registered is not valid, yet once it is registered, it takes effect from the date of its execution. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that the lease deed that was executed on 5th December, 1949 and registered on 3rd April 1950, conferred interest in the property upon the lessee from the date on which the lease deed was executed and that was by operation of law.

11. However, the principle so laid down in Thakur Kishan Singh was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its two judgments and both these judgments show that it has been explained in terms of the relevant observations made in both these judgments for its appropriate application to the instances of the sale deed. It will be useful for us to first refer to the relevant observations made in both these cases.

12. In the c