AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has questioned the judgment and order dated 17.01.1989 rendered by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 05/A/89-N, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner.
Also challenge is raised to the subsequent order dated 28.02.1996 passed by the same Tribunal in Review Petition No. MRT.1/C/96-N, whereby the application seeking a review of the dismissal order was rejected. The petitioner assails the order dated 17.03.1978 rendered by the learned Additional Tahsildar at Kinwat in Case No. 75-LR-I-Adiwasi-Islapur-44, which invalidated the petitioner's land transaction and directed the restoration of the property to the original respondent.
The father of the petitioner purchased agricultural land on 10.08.1969 from the father of the respondent. The subject property comprises Land Survey No. 89, admeasuring 10A-8G land, situated in District Nanded and was transferred for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. Following the execution of the sale deed, physical possession of the land was handed over and the corresponding entry in the revenue records was effected.
Thereafter, the Additional Tahsildar, Kinwat initiated a suo-moto enquiry on 28.03.1977 under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, read with Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, under the assumption that the vendor belonged to a Scheduled Tribe and the buyer was a non-tribal individual. The Additional Tahsildar rendered an order on 17.03.1978, declaring the 1969 sale transaction invalid for want of prior permission from the Collector and ordered the restoration of possession to the respondent.
The father of the petitioner was illiterate and subsequently died in the year 1984. Petitioner, upon attaining majority, preferred appeal accompanied with an application for condonation of delay before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the year 1989. However, the Tribunal rejected the appeal at the threshold of limitation without considering the merits of the case and later rejected the petitioner's review petition. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.
Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the disputed sale deed was executed on 10.02.1969, whereas the community to which the respondent belongs was recognized and included as a Scheduled Tribe in the year 1976. The Counsel further submits that since the respondent did not hold tribal status on the date of the transaction, the Revenue Authorities committed error of law while applying protective tribal land laws.
The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned restoration order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Additional Tahsildar erroneously served the statutory notices upon an unrelated third party, namely Jalbaji Hiraman, and consequently finalized the proceedings behind the back of the owner. The respondent does not even qualify as a tribal under the definition set out in the Government Memorandum dated 02.12.1976. Since the petitioner was a minor and his father was an illiterate who died thereafter in 1984, the subsequent delay in approaching the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was unintentional.
To support this contention, the learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the authoritative Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Baliram Reva Chavhan and Ors. Vs. Gajanan Shekrao Wanjare and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 1701 of 2019), which holds that a subsequent recognition of a tribe cannot operate retrospectively to invalidate a prior transaction entered into between non-tribal individuals.
Per contra, Mr. Gangakhedkar, the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition submitting that the vendor belonged to the "Andh" community, which was notified as a Scheduled Tribe on 06.09.1950 under the first Presidential Order (C.O. 22 S.R.O. 510) for the erstwhile Hyderabad State, which then included the Kinwat taluka of Nanded District. When the State of Maharashtra was formed, the Bombay Reorganisation Act of 1960 explicitly maintained this tribal recognition for the Andh community within Nanded District under Clause 6 of Part VII-A.
The learned counsel further submits that the subsequent Central Amendment through Act No. 108 of 1976 did not introduce or induct the Andh community as a new Scheduled Tribe. Instead, it rather removed the area restrictions across the state. Furthermore, the learned counsel raises a preliminary objection regarding severe delay and laches.
To support the contentions, the learned counsel for respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner (AIR 1995 SC 94) and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajesh Yadavrao Shankpale Vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1999 BOMBAY 372), which hold that the 1976 amendment did not create new tribal identities but expanded the geographical application of tribes already recognized since 1950. Therefore, since the vendor held tribal status in Nanded District at the time of the sale deed on 04.02.1969, the transaction was covered by Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
When confronted with the presidential orders, Mr. Katneshwarkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, fairly conceded the position regarding the tribal status of the respondent. Upon perusal of record, it indicates that the "Andh" community was notified as a Scheduled Tribe under the first Presidential Order (C.O. 22 S.R.O. 510) dated 06.09.1950 for the erstwhile Hyderabad State, under whose territorial jurisdiction the subject land in Kinwat taluka, District Nanded, was then included.
The said constitutional recognition was maintained upon the formation of the State of Maharashtra by virtue of Clause 6 of Part VII-A of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. Consequently, the subsequent amendment vide Act No. 108 of 1976 did not induct a new caste or tribe into the protected list; it merely removed the prevailing area restrictions.
This position is squarely governed by the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), which clarified that the 1976 amendment only expanded the regional application of existing tribes rather than addition. In light of this settled position and the fair concession made by the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, the reliance placed on the judgment of Baliram Reva Chavhan (supra) does not lend any support.
In Baliram Reva Chavhan (supra), the Court dealt with a community for want of tribal status at the time of the transaction in that part of Vidarbha region i.e. Yawatmal District, whereas in the present case, the respondent's status as a protected tribal on the date of the sale deed stands undisputed. Therefore, the original transaction dated 10.02.1969 is hit by the restrictive provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
Furthermore, the petition also fails on the ground of delay and laches. The order rendered by the Additional Tahsildar directing the restoration of the land was delivered on 17.03.1978. During lifetime, the father of the petitioner chose not to challenge. The present petitioner initiated a challenge before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the year 1989. After the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner waited for nearly six years to prefer a review petition, which was subsequently rejected.
This Court is conscious that a liberal approach must be adopted while evaluating applications for the condonation of delay, as a refusal to condone delay would avoid adjudication on merit, such latitude cannot be granted in the absence of sufficient, and justifiable reasons. The petitioner has failed to provide sufficient justification for this delay.
As such, in view of the detailed findings, I find that no perversity or error in the concurrent orders passed by the Authorities below. The respondent's tribal status on the date of the transaction is absolute and the petitioner's challenge is hit by laches.
Consequently, the Writ Petition sans merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Resultantly, pending civil applications also stand disposed of.
Rule stands discharged.