1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGUR BENCH : N A G P U R SECOND APPEAL NO. 182 OF 1995 The State of Maharashtra through Collector, Gadchiroli. ... APPELLANT. (Ori. Deft.) - VERSUS - 1. Maroti s/o Ramannaji Myakalwar 2. Samadhan s/o Tulshiram Sadar 3. Devidas s/o Himmatrao Ingole 4. Sudhakar s/o Shankarrao Mukalwar 5. Govinda s/o Mata Meshram ... RESPONDENTS. (Ori. Plffs.) ..... Mr. A.M. Kadu, AGP, for the Appellant. Mr. C.S. Kaptan Advocate for Respondents 1, 2 & 4. ..... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATE : 07.04.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1995 in First Appeal 2 of 1990 passed by the 2 Additional District Judge, Gadchiroli, reversing the judgment of the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 15 of 1985, by which the suit was dismissed, the present appeal was filed by the State. 2. In support of the appeal, learned A.G.P. argued that Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was violated while transferring the property belonging to the Government and the appellate court erred in decreeing the suit, which was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. Learned AGP invited my attention to the question framed in grounds of this appeal which I have perused and I find that the same are questions of facts and have been answered by the first appellate court and in my opinion the question of fact cannot be gone into second appeal. The question raised that the sale was in violation of Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code cannot be considered in view of the fact that the Court has found that Govinda was not a tribal. Nothing has been shown that Govinda was a tribal. In the absence of any evidence or pleading showing Govinda a tribal, Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is not at all attracted. In view of the above, I do not find any error with the appellate judgment. That apart, it is seen that the property was transferred without approval or sanction from the State Government by Govinda. The property is hardly a piece of one acre land. 3 It is true that the property could have been transferred with prior permission of the Government, but there is a provision under the Land Revenue Code for regularization of such sale. 3. In view of the above, this appeal is dismissed reserving liberty in favour of the appellant/State to consider sympathetically the application of respondents 1 to 4 for regularization. Respondents 1 to 4 undertake to file such application for regularization within a period of three months from today. The State Government or the Competent Authority shall, after considering the same sympathetically, decide the same in accordance with law. JUDGE