Advocates:
['BEDRE VINAYAK SUDHAKAR', 'COPY SERVED ON G P', '', 'AGP', 'AMBETKAR ARVIND G']

Writ Petition No.7044/2018

:: 1 ::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.7044 OF 2018

Laxman s/o Haribhau Vyawahare & ors. … PETITIONERS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

… RESPONDENTS

.......

Shri V.S. Bedre, Advocate for petitioners

Shri A.B. Chate, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2

Shri A.G. Ambetkar, Advocate for respondent No.3

....…

CORAM :

R. G. AVACHAT, J.

Date of reserving order : 2nd March, 2021

Date of pronouncing order : 7th May, 2021

O R D E R :

The challenge in this Writ petition is to the order

dated 9/9/2016, passed by the Tahsildar, Parner in Adivasi

Restoration Case No.125/2016 and confirmed by Deputy

Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Nasik Division, Nasik in R.T.S.

Revision No.719/2016.

2.

The respondent No.3 preferred the application to

the Tahsildar for restoration of the lands, Gut Nos.96 and 97,

situated at Gajadipur Wadgaon Savtal, Taluka Parner, District

Writ Petition No.7044/2018

:: 2 ::

Ahmednagar on the ground of having been transferred/ sold

in contravention of the provisions of Section 36-A of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). The

Tahsildar, on enquiry, held the transfers/ sale of those lands to

have been in contravention of Section 36A of the MLRC and,

therefore, to be invalid, and directed those lands to vest in

the State Government. The petitioners unsuccessfully

challenged the said order in revision before the Deputy

Commissioner. The petitioners are, therefore, before this

Court.

FACTS :-

3.

The lands Gut Nos.96 and 97 originally belonged

to one Rambha Bala Pawar, grandfather of the respondent

No.3. Rambha and his son Uttam sold these lands to Rahibai

Haribhau Vyawahare on 3/3/1986. Rahibai, in turn, sold

these lands to Ramdas Pokale, Shankar Pokale and Laxman

Vyavahare on 15/2/2011. Ramdas and Shankar, in turn, sold

the lands to Bhau Chormale, Sona Dehekale and Bhima

Shingate (petitioners No.2 to 4 herein).

4.

The respondent No.3 moved the application dated

24/1/2014 to the Collector, alleging the lands to have

belonged to his grandfather, a person belonging to Scheduled

Writ Petition No.7044/2018

:: 3 ::

Tribe and the sale of the lands, therefore, were in breach of

Section 36-A of the MLRC. He also claimed for restoration of

those lands back to him and other heirs of late Rambha Bala

Pawar.

As stated above, both the authorities have

concurrently held that the lands belonged to a tribal and have

been transferred to a non-tribal without previous sanction of

the Collector with the approval of the State Government.

5.

Heard. Mr. V.S. Bedre, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that, both the authorities below have

not taken into consideration the fact that the lands have

changed many a hands during the period of 35 years. The

respondent No.3 did not take exception to the earlier sale

transactions.

Late Rambha Pawar has other heirs/

representatives besides the respondent No.3. They have not

taken exception to the transfer of the lands under various sale

deeds. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this

Court in case of Vasant Mahadeo Tikekar and others Vs. State

of Maharashtra and others [ 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 773 ], and

ultimately urged for remand of the matter for de novo hearing

since the Tahsildar did not take into consideration all the

aforesaid aspects.

Writ Petition No.7044/2018

:: 4 ::

6.

Shri A.G. Ambetkar, learned counsel for

respondent No.3 would, on the other hand, submit that the

lands belonging to tribal came to be transferred to a non-

tribal. The sale instances are, therefore, invalid. The

authorities below have rightly allowed the application moved

by the respondent No.3. No interference is therefore called

for with the impugned order.

The learned A.G.P. supported the impugned order.

7.

Section 36-A of the MLRC speaks of restrictions on

transfers o