1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2031 OF 1996. Prabhakar Bhaurao Patil, Agriculturist, R/o Nardhana, Taluka Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Lakha Bhika Bhil, since deceased through legal heirs : 1A. Gulab Lakha Bhil, 1B. Lalchand Lakha Bhil 1C. Mulchand Lakha Bhil. 1D. Motilal Lakha Bhil. 1E. Bhivsan Lakha Bhil. (Petition dismissed against Respondent Nos.1B to 1E vide Court's order dt.10.12.2004). 2. Gulab Lakha Bhil. 3. Tukaram Dula Bhil. 4. Madaribai Sona Bhil. 5. Deoram Bhikari Bhil. 2 6. Natha Ana Bhil since deceased through legal heirs : 6A. Dagadu Natha Bhil. 6B. Zaglal Natha Bhil. 6C. Morchand Natha Bhil. 6D. Gulchand Natha Bhil (Petition dismissed against Respondent No.6D vide Court's order dt.10.12.2004.) 6E. Bhagwan Natha Bhil, since deceased through heir : 6EE. Kashinath Bhagwan Bhil. (Petition dismissed against Respondent No.6EE vide Court's order dt.10.12.2004.) 7. Tarachand Ratan Bhil. 8. Shrimati Rajubai Ratan Shinde. 9. Ukha Eka Bhil. 10.Satrya Devaji Bhil since deceased through heirs : 10A. Hiraman Satrya Bhil, 10B. Harchand Satrya Bhil. 10C. Bhalchand Satrya Bhil. (Petition dismissed against Respondent No.10C vide Court's order dated 10.12.2004). 10D. Gopichand Satrya Bhil, since deceased through heir 10DD. Suklal Gopichand Bhil. 3 11. Mulchand Lakha Shinde (Petition dismissed against Respondent No.11 vide Court's order dt.10.12.2004). 12. Dula Dala Bhil, since deceased through legal heirs : 12A. Tukaram Dula Bhil. 12B. Sitaram Dulal Bhil. 12C. Madhukar Dula Bhil. 12D. Lilabai W/o Vasant More. All residing at & Post : Nardhana, Taluka Sindkheda, Dist.Dhule. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate holding for Mr.P.M.Shah, Sr.counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.B.Madde, advocate holding for Mr.N.B.Suryawanshi, advocate for Respondent Nos. 2,3,4,6A,8,10A and 12A. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 08.03.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this petition is to judgment rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Revision Application No.Trb.24/1990. By 4 the impugned judgment, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and direction was given to the Tahsildar to proceed under sub- section (4) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (For short, "the Restoration Act"). 2. The petitioner is purchaser of the land in question bearing Gat No.119, admeasuring 3 Hectares 85 Ares, situated at village Nardhana. The land was originally owned by Lakha Bhil and others. Indisputably, the transfer was effected by the tribals i.e. Lakha Bhil and others on 9.7.1969 by virtue of a registered sale deed. It is also worthwhile to notice that permission was obtained from the SDO under provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Still, however, no permission was sought from the Collector to purchase the land owned by the tribals. Initially, proceedings No.125/1975 were commenced U/s 36(3) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, for restoration of the land but had been dropped. 5 Thereafter, the proceedings were initiated U/s 3 read with Section 4 of the Restoration Act. The learned SDO rendered order dated 1.3.1976 and confirmed the Tahsildar's order dated 22.10.1975 which was rendered in the proceedings initiated at behest of a Social worker by name Bapu Wani. The transfer of the land in favour of the petitioner was held to be void and, therefore, restoration thereof was ordered. The MRT confirmed such orders vide the impugned judgment. 3. Heard learned counsel. 4. It is important to notice that transfer of land owned by tribal can not be lawfully effected without prior permission of the competent authority. If such transfer is effected without there being exchange of land by the transferee in lieu of the purchased land or the justification which could give legality to the transaction, the proceedings could be taken for restoration of the land in favour of the tribal. The proceedings are required to be initiated suo-motu by the competent authority. 6 The Restoration Act is a social Legislation. The benefit of provisions U/ss 3 and 4 must be made available to the tribals as and when they are found eligible to seek restoration of the landed property. It is undisputed that the transaction of purchase was not effected after exchange of any valuable land or with due permission of the competent authority. 5. In "Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar Vs. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and another" 1995 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 549, the Apex Court held that in such a case the transaction ought to be held as against the Government Policy of economic empowerment to tribals. The sale transaction is, therefore, unlawful as it is against the Public Policy. The transaction is, therefore, void and the view taken by the MRT can not be faulted with. The dismissal of the earlier proceedings does not create bar of resjudicata. It is also explicit that previously the limitation to take action under the relevant provisions was of three (3) years which is increased to thirty (30) years after the amendment and, therefore, the next 7 proceedings could not be deemed as barred by limitation. Considered from the stand point of view of the intention of the social legislation, there is hardly any merit in the petition. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp203196