Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.B. SURYAWANSHI, J
Mohd. Usman Mohd. Yusuf (Dead through Legal heirs) – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Shashikala Sahebrao Parteki – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2344 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri C.A. Babrekar
For the Respondents: Ms A.S. Lanjewar, Ms T.H. Khan
Sale of tribal land to non-tribal without prior permission is illegal, reinforcing protective measures under relevant statutes.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 - Sections 36 and 36-A - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sale transaction between a tribal and non-tribal without obtaining prior permission from Collector deemed illegal; Tahsildar justified in restoring land to tribal. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 15)
(B) Jurisdiction and Authority - Authorities must comply with specific provisions before approving transactions involving tribal lands - Interpretation of the relevant provisions upheld in the context of sale transactions. (Paras 10, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested restoration orders under the Act of 1974 pertaining to tribal land sold without necessary permissions post the enactment of the relevant laws.
Findings of Court:
The sale transaction was illegal as it violated the provisions aimed at protecting tribal land rights.
Issues: The legality of the sale transaction and whether the Act of 1974 and sections of the MLR Code were applicable to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that prior permission must be obtained for the sale of tribal land to ensure compliance with protective legislations meant for tribal rights. The findings of the authorities were upheld as they properly interpreted the applicable laws.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the land restoration and sale transaction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's observations regarding the application of laws. (Para 5 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. arguments on the legality of the land sale transaction. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. court validated findings regarding tribal land rights. (Para 10) |
| 5. application of legal provisions and rules to uphold land rights. (Para 15) |
2. This petition takes exception to the order dated 23.1.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati (R-5) in Revision Application No.277/MRC- 81/Navsari/2017-18, by which the order passed by the Collector thereby restoring the land to the tribals is confirmed.
3. On 26.10.1994, Babarao Amrutrao Parteki, who belonged to the Gond Scheduled Tribe, purchased land Gat No. No.101/01, ad-measuring 1 Hectare 62 Ares at Mouza Navsari, Tahsil and District-Amravati from Anant Gopalrao Mahalle by a registered sale deed No.1964. On 1.2.1995, Mohd. Usman Mohd. Yusuf - the petitioner, purchased the suit land from Babarao Parteki.
4. On 18.3.1996, Babarao Parteki filed an application before the Tahsildar, Amravati for restoration of his land under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short ‘Act of 1974) wherein the Tahsildar, by an exparte order restored the land to Babarao. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who maintained the said order and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was referred by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, which was allowed and direction was given to the Sub-Divisional Officer to verify the matter and decide it on merit. The order of the Collector was challenged in revision before the Commissioner by the petitioner. In the said revision, the Commissioner remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed to pass order considering the provisions of Section 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short ‘M.L.R. Code’).
5. In pursuance of the directions of the Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer reopened the case and came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 36 -A of the MLR Code are applicable to the facts of the case and since no permission of the Collector was obtained before transferring the land belonging to the tribal to non-tribal, the said transfer was illegal, hence dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, vide order dated 20.6.2016. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which was rejected for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector, by taking into consideration the caste validity certificate issued in favour of Sunita Parteki, a close relative of Babarao Parteki, held that Babarao belonged to the Gond Scheduled Tribe. The Collector, therefore, observed that the sale transaction between the deceased Babarao and deceased Mohd. Usman Mohd. Yusuf was without obtaining prior permission of the government, hence was contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1974 and Section 36 and 36-A of the MLR Code, therefore, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner thereafter approached the Divisional Commissioner by filing a revision which was also dismissed, hence the present petition.
6. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners, the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.5 to 8.
7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the Act of 1974 is applicable to the sale transaction between 1.4.1957 to 6.7.1974. Since the sale transaction between deceased Babarao and deceased Mohd. Usman Mohd. Yusuf was of the year 1995, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable. He further submitted that deceased Babarao had purchased the land in the year 1994, by a registered sale deed, wherein his caste w
