1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition NO.2887/2010 Gawarabai w/o Chandu Atram and others Vs. Sau. Chandrabhagabai Dayalal Kanake and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S. R. Deo, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms. Sonali Saware for respondent no.1 Mr. Sonare, AGP for respondents 2 to 5. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER13, 2010. Heard Advocate S. R. Deo for the petitioners, Advocate Ms. Sonali Saware for respondent no.1 and Mr. Sonare, AGP for respondents 2 to 5. Contention of Advocate Deo is transaction between the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner and present respondent no.1 is prior to coming into force of amended provisions of Section 36 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Learned counsel states that when transaction took place respondent no.1 was not tribal and hence there is no question of provisions of either Maharashtra Restoration of Land of Scheduled Tribes Act being made applicable retrospective at her instance or then provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code being read retrospectively. Learned AGP for respondents 2 to 5 as well as Advocate 2 Saware for respondent no.1 have relied upon the impugned order and provisions under Section 36(2) to urge that the law on the point is rightly applied. It is admitted position that respondent no.1 became tribal after removal of area restriction by amendment to constitute Scheduled Tribes Order 1950 in 1976. Effect thereof has been considered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra :1993 Mh. L. J. 1168. The arguments of learned counsel for petitioner which run contrary to said Division Bench judgment, therefore cannot be appreciated. The Additional Commissioner has found that provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as amended came into force from 6.7.1974 and the transaction in which is dated 9.5.1974 i. e. prior to amendment coming into force. Therefore, provisions of Section 36(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (as amended) are not relevant. The question cropped up in mutation proceedings moved by respondent as she wanted her name to be recorded as owner because of that sale deed. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition is accordingly rejected. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar