( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4557 OF 1996 Shripat s/o. Ukha Patil .. Petitioner Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. Village Chinode, Tq. Taloda, Dist. Dhule. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents 2. Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. Shri C.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri D.V. Tele, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 10.09.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges notice dated 23.08.1996, issued by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, for revision of decision given by the Tahsildar, Taloda, in Adiwasi Case No. 265/76 decided on 23.06.1978, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short “the Act of 1974”). 2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition may be ( 2 ) stated as below :- . Petitioner Shripati Ukha Patil had purchased Survey No. 46/2 admeasuring 1 H. 11 R. plus 22 R. pk. situated at Rozave from one Tarusing, who had inherited said land from Sitabai. Admittedly, Sitabai was a tribal and Shripati – present petitioner is non-tribal. The purchase made by petitioner – Shripati was in the year 1967 for Rs. 2500/-. Shripati exchanged said land Survey No. 46/2 situated at Rozave with Survey No. 93/4, admeasuring 1 H. 14 R. plus 6 R pk. assessed at Rs. 4.95 ps. Belonging to one Rupsing Kalu Bhil. Said land was situated at village Chinode, Tal. Taloda. The exchange appears to have been made between Shripati and Rupsing after obtaining permission of the Assistant Collector, Nandurbar. We get copy thereof at Exh. “B”, with the petition. It is dated 30.03.1968. 3. The sale and exchange both came under scrutiny of Tahsildar in Adiwasi Case No. 265/76 under the provisions of the Act of 1974. By order dated 23.06.1978, the Tahsildar observed that the land was originally belonging to Sitabai and the land was sold to petitioner Shripati in 1967. It is ( 3 ) observed that the land was transferred to a tribal and therefore the original tribal was not entitled to restoration. 4. Said decision came to be scrutinized in suo-moto revision proceeding No. LR.Adiwasi.Rev.Case No.206 of 1986, by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. However, in said proceedings instead of present petitioner Shripati, his wife Jashibai, who had received the land for maintenance, represented him as non-tribal transferee and Rupupsing was the tribal transferror. The lands were same, namely, Survey No. 93/4 situated at village Chinode, admeasuring 1 H. 14 R. plus 6 R pk., assessed at Rs. 4.95 ps. and Survey No. 46/2 situated at village Rozave, admeasuring 1 H. 11 R. plus 22 R pk. assessed at Rs.3.94 ps. So the lands were same and said transfer came under the scrutiny. One of the point that was raised is that the value of the land which was originally belonging to tribal and which was received by tribal in exchange were of same value. In para 6 of the judgment dated 25.05.1988, there is discussion in detail. It was also observed that the rate of assessment per acre was almost same value. The value of land exchange to tribal was ( 4 ) not less than the value of the land received in exchange by the non-tribal and therefore the land could not be restored to the tribal. So, this was finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner after hearing the parties. Thereafter, it is made clear that the tribal Rupsing Bhil had given his land to non-tribal Shripati in exchange on 17.04.1968. On 31.01.1970 Shripati had transferred the suit land to his wife Jhasibai in lieu of maintenance. It is further observed that Jhasibai had become full owner of the land under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act. In the circumstances of the case, it was held that the order of the Tahsildar deserves to be confirmed. The order of the Tahsildar referred to in the judgment of the Additional Commissioner was dated 04.02.1986. 5. The question arises whether having come to a conclusion by the Additional Commissioner in revision that the value of the land received in exchange by the non-tribal was not more than the value of land received by the Tribal, whether there was occasion for review or revision unless some reasons were mentioned. ( 5 ) 6. The learned advocate Shri C.R. Deshpande for the petitioner argued that there was no reason for exercising right of revision as against order of Tahsildar dated 23.06.1978, when already revision was entertained. Moreover, such second revision is also time barred. He referred to Section 7 of the Act of 1974. Said Section 7 is as follows:- “7. Where no appeal has been filed within the period provided by sub-section (2) of section 6, the Commissioner may suo-motu or on the directions of the State Government at any time - (a) call for the record of any inquiry or proceeding of any Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed by, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of, such Collector, as the case may be and; (b) Pass such order thereon as he thinks fit; Provided that no such record shall be called for after the expiry of three years from the date of such order except in cases where directions are issued by the State Government; and no order of the Collector shall be modified, annulled or reversed unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and to be heard.” 7. The learned A.G.P. Shri D.V. Tele argued that in this case the revision is being sought as per directions of the Government to the Commissioner by Memorandum No. Adivasi ( 6 ) 3194/PK/1040/L-9 dated 31.08.1984. Thereafter, notice dated 31.08.1996 was issued. So, almost two years after the decision of the Government, review was sought to be entertained. Paras 5 and 6 of the affidavit-in-reply is very clear that the direction was to entertain review and section 7 will not be applicable which deals with revision. As per Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the limitation for review of the judgment is 30 days. Absolutely, no reason appears for review when original decision is on merit. If tribal was dissatisfied with the same, there ought to have been challenge to the decision by way of writ petition. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not satisfied that there was any cause for review when the Additional Commissioner has already come to a conclusion that value of land exchanged was almost same and in no case the value of the original land of the tribal was more than the land received by him in exchange. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Even otherwise by notice dated 23.08.1996 the order dated 23.06.1978 by the Tahsildar was sought to be subjected ( 7 ) to revision under Section 7 of the Act of 1974 in the year 1996 i.e. after 22 years. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham V/s. K. Suresh Reddy and Ors., 2003 AIR SCW 4084 and this Court in Shaikh Nabu Shaikh Abu and anr. V/s. Zipa Gokul Bhil and Ors., (W.P. No. 1011 of 1997) decided on 02.06.2008, such power of suo moto revision has to be exercised within reasonable time. And in the facts of the case, it cannot be said that notice for suo moto revision is given within reasonable time. 10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Notice dated 23.08.1996 initiating revision/review by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/SEP09/wp4557.96