Back
SUNIL B. SHUKRE, A. S. CHANDURKAR, ANIL L. PANSARE
Baliram, S/o. Reva Chavhan Through his Power of Attorney Holder:- Shrikant S/o. Baliram Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Gajanan S/o. Shekrao Wanjare – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of land and parties involved. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. conflicting views arise from different judgments regarding tribal status. (Para 6 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. court's examination of legislative history and case law. (Para 7 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. interpretation of legal provisions regarding tribal status. (Para 15 , 25 , 36) |
| 5. court's conclusion on statutory interpretation. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
(Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard.
2. By this reference, we have been called upon to answer a question which arises quite often while applying the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes, 1974 (for short “Restoration Act”) and which has intrigued legal minds in the State of Maharashtra for quite sometime. For answering the question, a brief reference to the facts of the case would be useful.
3. The petitioner, a non-tribal, is an owner of the agricultural field involved in the petition, which is hereinafter called as ‘the land in question’. It was purchased by the petitioner from respondent no.4 vide registered sale deed dated 26.06.1994. The land in question was a part of larger piece of land belonging to father of respondent no.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
