1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3058 OF 2010 Smt. Prabhawatibai @ Pushpa Keshavrao Harde -: VERSUS :- State of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2010. Heard Shri N.N. Thengre, learned Counsel for petitioner- non tribal purchaser, Shri A.K. Neware, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 Tribal owner and Shri Kankale, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2. Short contention of Shri Thengre, learned Counsel is lands of respondent no.2 were purchased by one Gorelal on 18.03.1970 and petitioner purchased those lands from Gorelal in 1976. The proceedings for restoration of lands under Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribe Act, 1974 were initiated vide Case No. 12/A-19/1985-86, and same were dropped on 14.01.1976, as tribal did not agree to cultivate the lands 2 personally. These proceedings were then reopened and an order against Gorelal was passed on 06.07.1993. The petitioner was not heard at that time by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramtek. The petitioner then filed an appeal under Section 6 before the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal and that appeal has been dismissed on 05.05.2010. Learned Counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment reported at 2005 [4] ALL MR 811 (Sandu Dayaram Patil .vrs. Gulab Dagadu Tadvi (deceased) and another), to urge that Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has not applied the law correctly. Shri Neware, learned Counsel contends that the proceedings were earlier dropped erroneously and in view of the provisions of law a tribal is entitled for restoration of his land, sold in violation of the said legislation. He, therefore, argues that view taken by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is in accordance of law. Learned A.G.P. has also supported the arguments of Shri Neware, learned Counsel. Learned A.G.P. has also relied upon the provisions of Section 36[3] of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to urge 3 that as sale was in violation of relevant provisions of law, the restoration application can be moved within a period of 30 years of the commencement of that amendment to Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. After hearing the respective counsel, I find that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not called upon to consider all this law and the precedents on which reliance is being place. Learned Member has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported at 1993 Mh.L.J. 1168 (Kashibai Sangapawar .vrs. State of Maharashtra ), however, how that judgment is relevant in present facts has not come on record. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by placing the matter before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal again for fresh consideration. In view of this, the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Appeal No. TRI/25/B-109/2001 is quashed and set aside and the proceedings are restored back to the file of said Tribunal for taking fresh decision in accordance with the law. Parties are directed to 4 appear before the said Tribunal on 15.09.2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall attempt to decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case within a further period of 4 months thereafter. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.