The requirement for Collector's sanction applies even for tribal-to-tribal property transfers to prevent exploitation.

1.The petitioner and respondents 1 to 7 belong to the ‘Andh’ community which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe.

2. According to the petitioner, vide sale-deed dated 17.09.2009, respondents 1 to 7 sold agricultural land admeasuring 1.23 HR assigned Survey 90 situated at Mouza Shelu, Pusad, District Yavatmal, to the petitioner.

3. Petitioner claims to be in possession of the said agricultural land.

4. Petitioner states that on 02.12.2013 respondent 1 preferred an application before the Tahsildar – respondent 8 herein for cancellation of the sale-deed and restoration of the agricultural land. The petitioner resisted the application contending that since the vendors and the vendee belonged to the Scheduled Tribe, there is no requirement of obtaining prior sanction of the Collector for the transfer.

5. The Tahsildar passed order dated 30.06.2015 allowing the application for restoration on the ground that the previous sanction of the Collector was not obtained. Consequentially, the mutation entry 365 which was taken on the basis of the sale-deed was cancelled.

6. The petitioner preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) which was not entertained.

7. The petitioner then preferred appeal under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code) which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati – respondent 9 herein by order dated 12.07.2016.

8. Dissatisfied with the concurrent view the petitioner is invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. The short submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Prithviraj Chawhan is that prior sanction of the Collector is not necessary if the transfer is between tribal and tribal.

10. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 Mr. Kubade would support the orders impugned on the premise that the issue is not res integra. The learned AGP Ms. Khan also supports the concurrent view of the authorities.

11. I have recently considered an identical issue in Writ Petition 1556/2022. Following the decision in Tulsiram Adku Marape & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2011(1) ALL MR 22, I have held that in view of the provisions of Section 36 (2) of the Code even a transfer between tribal and tribal would be illegal in the absence of previous sanction of the Collector.

12. I see no reason to reconsider the view which I have taken while deciding Writ Petition 1556/2022 (Vijay s/o Anandrao Moghe and others v. The Additional Collector/ Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal and others).

13. Section 36 of the Code reads thus : “36. Occupancy to be transferable and heritable subject to certain restrictions.

(1) An occupancy shall, subject to the provisions contained in section 72 and to any conditions lawfully annexed to the tenure, and save as otherwise provided by law, be deemed an heritable and transferable property.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-section occupancies of persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribals’) (being occupancies wherever situated in the State), shall not be transferred except with the previous sanction of the Collector :

Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall apply to transfer of occupancies made in favour of persons other than the Tribals (hereinafter referred to as the ‘non-Tribals’) on or after the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment)Act, 1974].

(3) Where an occupant belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in contravention of sub-section (2) transfers possession of his occupancy, the transferor or any person who if he survives the occ