1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2342 OF 2004 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J. Dated : 14 th February, 2007. Heard Advocate Shri I.S.Charlewar and Advocate Shri N.R.Borkar for petitioner and Learned A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that on the date on which the proceedings were initiated for restoration of land to tribals, the tribal Roshan was already dead and hence, in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Pandurang Shriram Gadekar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2004(2) Mh.L.J. page 913, the proceedings could not have been initiated at all. He further argues that the land has been purchased in the year 1974 and on that day as area 2 restrictions were in force, the vendors were not tribals as said area has been included in the sweep of Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 for the first time in 1976 after area restrictions were removed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Chandrabhagabai w/o Dhondba Gutte (died LRs) Godarvaribai w/o Laxman Gutte .vs. Ladba Narayan Sidarwad and others), reported at 2006(1) Mh.L.J. 485. Learned A.G.P. appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 states that the petitioner has purchased the land from two persons in 1974. Both of them were tribals and one of these tribals has expired in 1990. He further states that the judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, in the case of Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar and others ..Vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1993 (2) Mh.L.J. page 1168, was not brought to the knowledge of learned Single Judge and therefore, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the overruled judgment and taken a view contrary to it in its judgment in the case of Chandrabhagabai Gutte (supra). Perusal of papers reveal that the Sale Deed obtained 3 by petitioner is not several and as such when one of the tribals namely Zolba was alive till 1990, the judgment in the case of Pandurang Shriram Gadekar (supra) will not be applicable. It is to be noted that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 20/9/1989 and the triable has expired thereafter. Similarly, perusal of judgment of learned Single Judge of this court in the case of Smt.Chandrabhagabai Gutte (supra) reveals that there, reliance has been placed upon the Division Bech judgment of this court in the case of Tukaram .vs. Piraji (1989 Mh.L.J. 815) which has been held to be not a good law in the subsequent Division Bench judgment reported at 1993 Mh.L.J. 1168. Therefore, the other argument is also not sustainable. In the circumstances, there is no case made out for interference in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Diwale