AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M. Modak, J
Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.
Heard learned Advocate Shri Madhur Deo for the appellant/original non-applicant No.1.
When the present respondent No.5 applied before learned Special Tribunal, Nagpur for distribution of the compensation, present respondent Nos.1 to
4 have objected for disbursal of the amount to present appellant. The predecessor-in-title of the present appellant has purchased the land from
predecessor-in- title of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The relationship in between the vendor and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is disputed by the appellant.
The Sub-divisional Officer, Nagpur has ordered for restoration of the land on account of non-compliance of the provisions of the Maharashtra
Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The appellant went in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Though the matter was
closed for judgment, it could not be pronounced due to vacancy. In the meantime, learned Special Tribunal after hearing the contesting
7.FA.340.2021. 2/3 parties, as per the order dated 24 th March, 2021, was pleased to disburse the compensation to present respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The appellant has challenged the said judgment mainly on the ground that the Sub-divisional Officer, Chandrapur has not sent the caste certificate for
scrutiny. In support of that, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Kausalyabai Kisand Dhande Vs. Fakira Daula Tadvi since deceased through his
LRs. Sikandar Fakira Tadvi and others reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J 689.
Learned Special Tribunal after going through the judgment was pleased to observe that the ratio would not be applicable. It is for the reason that the
present appellant has not disputed the validity of the caste certificate. The second ground of contention is that in spite of the provisions of Section 26
of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1975, the jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal is not ousted, and when the dispute is
pending before the Revenue Tribunal, the present Special Tribunal ought not to have passed the present order.
Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable in 2nd week of July, 2021.
In addition to regular mode of service, the appellant is permitted to serve the respondent Nos.1 to 5 by hamdast.
Civil Application No.1055/2021 As per the impugned judgment, the amount is already disbursed to respondent Nos.1 to 4. Learned Advocate Shri
Madhur Deo prayed for issuing direction to these respondents to deposit the amount in the Court or to issue direction to them not to utilise the
7.FA.340.2021. 3/3 amount. These prayers cannot be considered today. However, I deem it proper to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to furnish an
undertaking that they will return the amount, if directed by this Court.
Hence, issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 5 with following direction:
a) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to furnish an undertaking before this Court within a period of 15 days from their appearance that they will abide
as per the direction given by this Court so far as disbursal of the amount is concerned.
Stand over in 2nd week of July, 2021.
In addition to regular mode of service, the appellant is permitted to serve the respondent Nos.1 to 5 by hamdast.