( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5 and perused the Special Civil Application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has expired during the pendency of this Special Civil application and his heirs and legal representatives have already been brought on record.

( 3 ) NONE of the respondents including the respondent No. 5 has filed reply to this Special Civil Application.

( 4 ) THE land in dispute is admeasuring 18 sq. mts. only. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are Vasava by Caste and they were the owners and in possession of the said land from whom the petitioner purchased this land by registered sale deed on 16-6-1981 for Rs. 800. 00. After purchasing this land, the petitioner constructed a pucca house after spending considerable amount and that house is being used by the petitioner for the purpose of residence and keeping the agricultural implements. The petitioner stated that the land is a Gamthan land (Gabhan ).

( 5 ) THE Deputy Collector initiated suo motu inquiry by giving notice to the petitioner in the year 1984 to show cause why the sale of the land in dispute, made in favour of the petitioner by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 should not be declared invalid as it is made in breach of the provisions of S. 73aa of the Bombay Land revenue Code. This notice was replied by the petitioner and it appears that the reply of the petitioner was not found favour with the Deputy Collector and the said authority under its order dated 18-8-1984 declared the sale transaction as invalid and further ordered for forfeiture of the land in dispute. A copy of this order has been filed by the petitioner on the record of this Special Civil Application as annexure a.

( 6 ) THE petitioner against this order preferred a Revision Application No. 752 of 1984 before the respondent No. 5. The respondent No. 5 vide its order dated 2-8-1985 dismissed the revision application of the petitioner. A copy of this order has been produced on the record of this Special Civil Application by the petitioner as Annexure b. Hence, this Special Civil Application before this Court.

( 7 ) IN this Special Civil Application, the petitioner challenging those orders aforesaid raised manifold contentions, namely :- (I) the initiation of suo motu inquiry for declaration of the sale deed to be invalid after three years is illegal and arbitrary, (ii) the land in dispute is not an agricultural land but it is only a village site land meant for the construction of house and as such it does not fall within the meaning of S. 73aa of the Code, and (iii) S. 73aa of the Code was enacted mainly with a purpose to prevent exploitation of the Adivasi people who were selling their agricultural lands which were their main source of income and livelihood. This land is merely a piece of land and the petitioner has purchased the same by paying the market value of the same to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

( 8 ) THE Counsel for the respondent No. 5 contended that admittedly the land in dispute was belonging to and in possession of an Adivasi and as such the transfer of the said land to a non-Adivasi is only permissible with prior permission of the government and admittedly as the prior permission was not taken, the respondent has not committed any error whatsoever in declaring the sale deed to be invalid and further ordering for forfeiture of the land to the Government. It has next been contended that in case only on the ground of delay such proceedings are declared to be illegal and quashed by this Court then the very purpose and object for which s. 73aa has been enacted in the Code will be frustrated. The underlying object of the provisions of S. 73aa of the Code is that the lands of the Adivasis are not taken away by the non-Adivasis. The Adivasis are the poor persons and as they are facing the difficulties and anybody can exploit them and to protect them from any exploitation the benevolent provision of S. 73aa has been enacted in the code.

( 9 ) I have given my thoughful consider