The main legal point established is that the previous sanction of the Collector is necessary for the transfer of agricultural land between tribals to protect them from exploitation, as mandated by Section 36 and Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent, the petition is heard finally.

2. The petitioners are assailing the consistent and concurrent views of the Tahsildar, Digras and the Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad which have held that the sale-deed executed by Mr. Kanha Namaji Nisande in favour of petitioner 1-Mr. Vijay Anandrao Moghe in relation to the agricultural field assigned Gat 76/2, admeasuring 1.61 H.R. situated at Mouza-Vasantpur Kharda is illegal as being contrary to the provisions of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Code). The premise on which the sale-deed is held illegal and the possession of agricultural field is directed to be restored to respondents 4 to 6 who claim to be the legal heirs of Mr. Kanha Namaji Nisande, is that the prior sanction of the Collector to the transfer is not obtained.

3. The genesis of the orders impugned is an application preferred by respondents 4 to 6 to the Tahsildar, Digras dated 17-6-2019 contending that the said respondents are members of the Andh Scheduled Tribe and that the agricultural field in question was owned by and in possession of the grandfather of respondents Shankar and Kailash Nisande. The said respondents contended that while they are in cultivating possession of the agricultural field, the petitioners herein have made attempt to forcibly dispossess them claiming to have purchased the field from deceased Kanha Namaji Nisande. Respondents 4 to 6 submitted that since the prior sanction of the Collector was not obtained, the sale-deed allegedly executed by deceased Kanha Namaji Nisande is clearly illegal.

4. The petitioners responded with the preliminary objection that the power to declare the sale-deed illegal is vested only with the civil Court. Perusal of the written statement dated 19-11-2019 reveals that the petitioners did not dispute that respondents 5 and 6 are tribals belonging to the Andh Scheduled Tribe. Rather, the petitioners contended that since the petitioners also belong to the Andh Scheduled Tribe, permission or sanction of the Collector was not necessary.

5. The Tahsildar, Digras declared the sale-deed illegal since the same was executed by Mr. Kanha Namaji Nisande without obtaining the prior sanction of the Collector. The petitioners approached the Additional Collector in Appeal 01/L.N.D.-31/2021-22 which is dismissed vide order dated 10-3-2022. The appellate authority agreed with the Tahsildar, Digras that in the absence of prior sanction of the Collector, the transfer was illegal.

6. The petitioners approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur (MRT), which declined to entertain the revision on the ground that the same was not tenable.

7. In the present petition, the grounds which are raised, are primarily twin. It is submitted that previous sanction of the Collector is not required since the transfer is by a tribal in favour of a tribal and the other ground which is raised, is that in the absence of validation by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee, the Tribe Certificate of respondents 4 to 6 could not have been relied.

8. The latter submission merits outright rejection since there was and is no dispute that respondents 4 to 6 are tribals. Rather, from the very inception of the proceedings, the petitioners themselves have been at pains to emphasize that both, the petitioners and the private respondents, are Andh Tribals and, therefore, the previous sanction of the Collector was not necessary. In the absence of any dispute as to the status of the contesting private respondents, the question of the authorities insisting on validation of the Tribe Certificate does not arise.

9. The first submission does not give rise to any question which is res integra. Identical submission is considered and rejected by this Court in Tulsiram Adku Marapa & another v. State of Maharashtra & others, 2011(1) ALL MR 22. It is unambiguously articulated that in view of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Code, a transfer b