1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3793/2011 (VITTHAL G. UIKEY VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Y.V. Nayyar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Sonare, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 3. Shri R.S. Sunderam, counsel for the R-4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 23 , 2011 . Heard. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not commit any error in quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar on 09.07.2010 allowing an application filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The petitioner claimed to be a tribal and, hence, preferred an application for restoration of the land, as according to the petitioner, the sale transaction dated 17.09.1984 was hit by the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The Tahsildar, after conducting an enquiry, held that the sale transaction complained of, was executed in breach of the provisions of Section 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the land was liable to be forfeited to the State Government. The order passed by the Tahsildar was challenged by the respondent no.4 in an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 6 of 2 the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside the order of the Tahsildar by allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.4. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on a consideration of the provisions of Section 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, came to a conclusion that the petitioner could not have filed an application for restoration of the land as the land was admittedly put to the non- agricultural use since long and used as a stone quarry. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal observed that the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1974 clearly suggested that the land could be restored to a tribal only in case he undertakes to cultivate the land personally and this showed that the petitioner could not have applied for restoration under the provisions of the Act of 1974 as the lands were converted to non-agricultural use, were used as a stone quarry and were not capable for being used for agricultural purpose. The Tribunal held, and rightly so, that the 'restoration of lands' was referable only to the agricultural land and not to non- agricultural or quarry land. Since the permission for conversion of the land for non-agricultural use was granted as early as in 1968 and since the land was used for mining and quarry purpose since 1971, the Tribunal held that the petitioner was not entitled for restoration of the land in question and the Tahsildar had committed a mistake in holding that the land in question was liable to be forfeited to the State Government. 3 The judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is just and proper and cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE