Kamruddin Umarji Shaikh since deceased through his heirs vs Shri Barkya Ratna Babar and others

T.K. Chandrasekhara Das, J.—The petitioner challenges the order passed by Shri T.K. Kambale, Additional Commissioner dated 14-12-1983 by exercising the revisional power u/s 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Schedule Tribes, Act, 1974 whereby the possession of the land in question has been ordered to be restored to the first respondent. The first respondent admittedly was the tenant of the land under the landlord respondent No. 2. By virtue of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, proceedings were initialed in favour of the first respondent and the purchase price has been fixed. Since the first respondent failed to pay the purchase price the order passed u/s 32-G has become ineffective. Consequently the proceedings u/s 32-P were taken and the possession of the property was surrendered back to the 2nd respondent, landlord. Undisputedly, the first respondent was evicted from the land pursuant to the proceedings u/s 32-P on 14-4-1964. Subsequently the property has been sold by the second respondent to the petitioner by registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- on 16-2-67. On 23-7-74, the first respondent made an application purported to be u/s 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974. By an order evidenced by Exhibit B dated 31st August 1978, the Additional Tahsildar Jawhar had rejected the application. But however exercising the suo motto power u/s 7 the Additional Commissioner revised the order by setting aside the original order and by directing that the heirs of the first respondent are entitled for restoration of the suit land in question.

The main contention of the Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Parulekar is that the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974 will not apply to the land in question after the section 32-G proceedings which were passed in favour of the first respondent becomes ineffective. Any person who came to be in possession of the land by virtue of the proceedings u/s 32-P cannot be said to be the transferee of the tribal land. This position is fortified by a decision of this Court reported in State of Maharashtra v. Khatua Makanji & Company Pvt. Ltd., 1987 M.L.J.908. I find that the said decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. The challenge raised by the petitioner in this petition against the impugned order is sustainable. In the result the petition is allowed. There shall be an order in terms of prayer Clause (a). Rule is thus made absolute in the above terms with no costs.

Petition allowed.