Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hirakant Ramchandra Kothari, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging two orders: one dated 23 March 1989 passed by the Tahasildar, Dahanu, and another dated 18 December 1989 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), both under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (Restoration Act). The dispute concerned land surveyed under No.214, Badapokharan, Dahanu, admeasuring about 2 Acres and 23½ Gunthas. The petitioner claimed that prior to 1957, one Ramchandra Ganpat Kore was the owner, and as on 1 April 1957 (the 'Tillers Day' under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948), the petitioner was in possession of a portion admeasuring 1 Acre and 12.8 Gunthas. However, the name of Arjun Marya Subhane, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, was recorded as a tenant. In 1963, proceedings under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act were initiated, and purchase price was fixed in favour of Arjun, but the petitioner was not impleaded. Despite this, the petitioner continued in possession. In 1971, the Tahasildar reported the petitioner's possession to the Special Deputy Collector, who ordered re-examination. In 1973, the Additional Tahasildar recorded that there were six tenants including the petitioner and Arjun, and fixed purchase price for each. The respondents, being Scheduled Tribes, sought restoration of the land under the Restoration Act, claiming that the transfer to the petitioner was void. The Tahasildar and MRT allowed restoration. The petitioner argued that he was a tenant in possession since 1957 and had acquired tenancy rights, and that the Restoration Act did not apply to tenancies created before its commencement. The court held that the Restoration Act is a special legislation intended to restore lands to Scheduled Tribes from non-tribals, and it overrides other laws. The petitioner's possession as a tenant, even if lawful under the Tenancy Act, cannot defeat the object of restoration. The court found no perversity in the findings of the authorities and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes - Validity of Restoration Orders - Sections 3, 4, 5 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 - The petitioner, a non-tribal, challenged orders restoring land to a Scheduled Tribe transferor. The court held that the Act overrides other laws and that restoration is mandatory if the transfer was by a tribal to a non-tribal. The petitioner's tenancy rights, even if acquired before the Act, cannot defeat the object of restoration. (Paras 1-10) B) Tenancy Rights - Effect of Restoration Act - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 32, 32G - The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in possession since 1957 and had purchase price fixed. However, the court held that the Restoration Act, being a special and later enactment, prevails. The earlier proceedings under the Tenancy Act were not binding on the tribal transferor and did not confer any indefeasible right on the petitioner. (Paras 5-8) C) Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Scope of Interference - The court noted that the Tahasildar and MRT had concurrent findings of fact that the land was transferred by a tribal to a non-tribal. The High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction, would not re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity. No perversity was found. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders of the Tahasildar and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal restoring the land to the respondent (a Scheduled Tribe) under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, are valid, and whether the petitioner, a non-tribal tenant, can resist restoration on the ground of his long possession and purchase of tenancy rights.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The orders of the Tahasildar and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act
- 1974
- Section 3
- Section 4
- Section 5
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Section 32
- Section 32G
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Restoration of land to original transferor or his heirs
- Nullity of earlier proceedings
- Possession of non-tribal tenant not protected
