1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5441 OF 2010. Inder Parasram Madavi Vs. State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar, Deori, Dist. Gondia and others .......................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri Shashikant Borkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri S.D. Malke, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 25th JULY, 2011. One Parasram Ramlalbapu Madavi, a tribal, was the owner of the land in question. In the year 1957 he executed the sale deed transferring the land in question to another tribal namely Zinger Maniram Sarate. A non- tribal one Ganesh Nama Kore, purchased the land in question from Zinger s/o Maniram Sarate by sale deed dated 24.03.1968. The proceedings were initiated under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribe Act for restoration of land from non tribal to tribal. Accordingly, order of restoration was passed directing the restoration of the land to Zinger Maniram Sarate. .....2/- 2 The petitioner herein raised a dispute about ownership of the land in question and claimed that the restoration should have been to him as he was the original owner of the land. This dispute was decided by the Tahsildar, Sadak Arjuni by his order dated 27.08.2004. By this order, the Tahsildar directed restoration of land from Zinger Maniram Sarate, a tribal, to Parasram Ramlalbapu Madavi, another tribal. The order of the Tahsildar dated 27.08.2004 was the subject matter of challenge in appeal No.TRI/A-109/2004, before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur has set aside the order of the Tahsildar passed on 27.08.2004 and directed restoration of land in possession of legal representatives of the deceased Zinger Maniram Sarate. This order is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition by the legal representatives of the original owner. Shri Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon of the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act has urged that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order transfer of land from one .....3/- 3 tribal to another tribal. According to him, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has directed restoration of land from the petitioner to legal representatives of Parasram Ramlalbapu Madavi, a tribal, to the respondent no.2 and 3 who are the legal heirs of Zinger Maniram Sarate another tribal. Hence, according to him the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is liable to be set aside. Undisputedly the land was sold by Zinger Maniram Sarate, a tribal, to Ganesh Nama Kore a non tribal. In exercise of the powers conferred upon the authorities under Section 3 of the said Act, an order of restoration of land from non-tribal Ganesh Nama Kore to tribal Zinger Maniram Sarate was passed. The said order has undisputedly attained finality. The petitioner has triggered the litigation by initiating proceedings No.LND-31/2001-2002 before the Tahsildar, Sadak Arjuni claiming that the land in question be transferred from Zinger Maniram Sarate to him i.e. transfer from one tribal to another tribal. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has passed an order. In appeal, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by impugned order dated 12.08.2010, .....4/- 4 has set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and has directed restoration of land to the legal representatives of Zinger Maniram Sarate. This order is in conformity with the earlier order of restoration passed under Section 3 of the said Act. The Tahsildar obviously committed an error of jurisdiction in entertaining application filed by the petitioner for transfer of land from a tribal Zinger Maniram Sarate to the petitioner who is also a tribal. This error of jurisdiction has been corrected by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in appeal. Hence, it cannot be said that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has acted illegally or without jurisdiction. In view of above, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE NSN ...../-