Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Ravindra Natthuji Dhobe and others, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, which dismissed their application under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (MRLS Tribes Act). The dispute concerned land originally owned by Zitru Atram, a tribal, who transferred it to Natthu Laxman Rajurkar, a non-tribal, without obtaining prior permission from the Collector as required under the Act. Subsequently, the petitioners purchased the same land from Natthuji Rajurkar. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, sons of Zitru Atram, sought restoration of the land, alleging that the transfer was void. The Tahsildar initially allowed the application, but the Revenue Tribunal reversed that order, holding that the application was barred by limitation and that the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, could not be affected. The High Court examined the provisions of the MRLS Tribes Act, which declares any transfer of tribal land to a non-tribal without Collector's permission as void ab initio. The Court held that a void transaction does not confer any title, and therefore, the subsequent purchasers cannot claim any rights. The question of limitation is irrelevant because a void transaction is a nullity from the beginning. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and restored the Tahsildar's order, directing restoration of the land to the tribal successors. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Tribal Land Transfer - Void Transfer - Section 3 read with Section 4 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 - Transfer of land by a tribal to a non-tribal without prior permission of the Collector is void ab initio - The subsequent purchasers from the non-tribal transferee cannot claim any right or title as the original transfer itself is void - The question of limitation does not arise for a void transaction - Held that the Revenue Tribunal erred in dismissing the application on grounds of limitation and that the petitioners' purchase from a non-tribal does not cure the defect (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in holding that the application under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the MRLS Tribes Act, 1974 was barred by limitation and that the petitioners, as subsequent purchasers, could not be affected by the void transfer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and restored the order of the Tahsildar directing restoration of the land to the tribal successors. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer of tribal land to non-tribal without prior permission of Collector is void ab initio
- Subsequent purchasers cannot claim protection if original transfer is void
- Limitation does not apply to void transactions
- Section 3 read with Section 4 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act
- 1974
