1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. W.P.NO.4585 OF 2008. Natthu S/o Gangaram Dhumane and another vs. Rama Doma Pradhan and others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. S. R. Deshpande advocate for the petitioner. Mr. I. S. Charlewar, Advocate for R-1. Smt. S. W. Deshpande, Advocate for R-3. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M.REIS, JJ Dated : 28th July, 2009. 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Charlewar Advocate for the respondent no.1, Mrs. Deshpande Advocate for the respondent no.3 and Mr. T. A. Mirza AGP for Respondent no.2. 2. The respondent no.1 got possession of the land restored to him by taking recourse to the provisions of Restoration of land to Schedule Tribes Act 1975, and the order of Tahasildar dated 30-11-2008 passed in his favour was challenged by the present petitioner in appeal under Section 6 thereof before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. On 2-5-2008, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had dismissed that appeal. Thus, the said order has attained the finality. 2 3. It appears that there was some dispute between the parties about the possession of the lands subject matter of this proceeding. The respondent no.1 lodged the police complaint against the petitioners no.1 & 2, on the basis of which, the offence under Section 3(1)(iv) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be registered against the petitioners. However, by the judgment delivered on 2-1-2004 in Special Case No.49 of 1994, the Special Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur acquitted the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the respondent no.3 Committee for verification of caste claim of the present respondent no.1, and then this petition has been filed with a grievance that the restoration of land has been obtained by the respondent no.1 by playing fraud. 4. Advocate Mr. Deshpande for the petitioners contended that the fact that respondent no.1 does not belong to Scheduled Tribes Pradhan has been brought on record as the petitioners have been acquitted in Special Case No.49 of 1994. He states that thus, the order of restoration though has become final needs to be recalled and possession of land needs to be restored back to the petitioners. 3 5. Advocate Mr. Charlewar for the respondent no.1 contends that the proceedings in Special Criminal Case does not show that the respondent no.1 did not belong to Pradhan Scheduled Tribes. He has taken us through the judgment of the Special Court for that purpose. Perusal of the judgment shows that the Special Judge has not recorded any finding about the caste of deceased Rama in the matter. Thus, the effort of the present petitioners to reopen the order passed by the Maharshtra Revenue Tribunal way back on 2-5-1981 because of said order is misconceived. If the petitioner wanted any such verification, that remedy was available to him when the proceedings for restoration were going on or within reasonable time thereafter. 6. The effort is to reopen the matter which has attained the finality about 16, 17 years back. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ Petition dismissed with no costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/