JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents in both petitions waive notice. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. A common question regarding legality and correctness of the order dated 7th October, 2020 passed by the Collector, Palghar is under consideration in both petitions. For the sake of convenience, they are taken together for disposal in accordance with law. The parties are referred to as per their status in Writ Petition (St.) No. 96235 of 2020.

3. The facts leading to both petitions can be stated in a narrow compass as below :

The petitioner-Viraj Profiles Ltd. (for short “Viraj”), a limited company, was intending to purchase a piece of land owned by respondent Nos. 7 to 15, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (for short “ST”). The price was negotiated between the parties, and the petitioner Company made part-payment to the said tribal land owners. respondent Nos. 7 to 15 (tribal land owners) had applied to the Collector seeking permission to transfer their land to non-Tribals in terms of section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “MLR Code”). In turn the respondent No. 4 Collector, Palghar made necessary enquiry and submitted his report to the Government for prior approval as required under Clause (b) of section 36-A of the MLR Code. Accordingly, the State Government vide its order dated 11th August, 2011 accorded prior approval for the transfer of land belonging to a Tribal to non-Tribal persons. However, no further steps were taken by the Collector in compliance with the prior approval dated 11th August, 2011.

4. Meanwhile, on 8th August, 2012 one Mr. Naik objected to the transaction of sale between the petitioner and tribal owners by pointing out certain illegalities. The complaint of Mr. Naik was inquired into and a report was submitted on completing the inquiry. On 11th September, 2013 the State directed the respondent No. 4 Collector, Palghar to remove the wire fencing erected by the petitioner and restore possession of the land to respondent Nos. 7 to 15 i.e. the original tribal owners. However, as there was no progress regarding grant of sanction by the respondent No. 4 Collector, all tribal owners (respondent Nos. 7 to 15) moved to this Court seeking relief of grant of sanction in terms of section 36-A of the MLR Code. In those Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No. 7654 of 2014 and, Writ Petition No. 7659 of 2014), this Court vide its common Order dated 9th December, 2014 and 21st October, 2016 directed the Collector, Palghar to decide the Application of respondent Nos. 7 to 15 under S. 36-A of the MLR Code, in accordance with the prior approval dated 11th August, 2011 granted by the State Government.

5. The petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Revenue Minister of the State, inter alia praying for revocation of Order dated 11th September, 2013 regarding removal of fencing, and for granting permission for sale of tribal land in pursuance of prior approval dated 11th August, 2011 under section 36-A of the MLR Code. It is the petitioner’s grievance that in the meantime, vide Order/ letter dated 10th December, 2013 the State has revoked prior approval dated 11th August, 2011. However, the Order/ letter of revocation was neither served on him nor right of hearing was given. Ultimately, the said Order/letter of revocation dated 10th December, 2013 was communicated to him (petitioner) on 12th November, 2018.

6. The petitioner has contended that his Appeal was allowed vide Order dated 4th July, 2019 by which directions were issued to the Collector, Palghar to take further steps regarding the sale of land in terms of section 36-A of the MLR Code. By a later Order dated 21st October, 2019 the State has modified its earlier Order dated 4th July, 2019 to a certain extent. However, maintaining the petitioner’s request for granting permission under section 36-A of the MLR Code, the State had directed the Collector to complet