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 Gandewa