(1) WP. 32.1993 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 1993 Shri Shabbirkha Hatamkha Musalman, Age : Major, Occu.: Agriculture, R/o. At and Post - Chinawal, Taluka - Raver, District - Jalgaon .. Petitioner VERSUS 1] Shri Akbarkha Mahtabkha Pathan, Age : Major, Residing at and Post Vivare (NK), Taluka- Raver, Dist. Jalgaon 2] Shri Khudabax Takdu Pathan, since deceased through his legal heirs i] Fakira Khudabax Tadvi, ii] Jamsher Khudabax Tadvi, iii] Mohammed Samsher Tadvi iv] Amina Samsher Tadvi v] Banu Dagadu Tadvi, through mother guardian Reshmabai w/o Dagadu Tadvi vi] Reshamabai w/o Dagadu Tadvi vii] Hasanur Rubab Tadvi viii] Sabanur w/o Ramzan Tadvi ix] Shahanur w/o Kalu Tadvi x] Aitur w/o Pirkha Tadvi xi] Bhikubai w/o Chabu Tadvi xii] Sakina w/o Itwar xiii] Jasu w/o Nijam xiv] Tulsabai w/o Khudabax Tadvi xv] Jaitur w/o Adbar Tadvi xvi] Yasodabai w/o Khudabax Tadvi Respondents Nos.2(i) to 2(xvi) residing at Vivare Bk. Taluka- Raver, District- Jalgaon (2) WP. 32.1993 3] Shri Kasam Tukadu Pathan, since deceased, through his LRs.:- i] Anwar Kasam Tadvi ii] Nawab Kasam Tadvi iii] Khatun Sadu Tadvi iv] Amita Rubag Tadvi v] Jaitumbi Abdul Tadvi vi] Hamidabi Fakira Tadvi vii] Mahibai w/o Kasam Tadvi, deceased (Leaving behind respondents nos. 3-i to 3-vi are the legal heirs and representatives Residing at Vivare (BK.), Tq. Raver, District-Jalgaon 4] Shri. Hasan Tukdu Pathan, since deceased through his legal heirs i] Abdul Hasan Tadvi ii] Kurvan Hasan Tadvi iii] Sungara w/o Sardar Tadvi iv] Husen Hawan Tadvi v] Madina w/o Kalu Tadvi vi] Sakina w/o Idvar Tadvi vii] Sajyabai Hasan Tadvi Respondents nos. 4(i) to 4(vii) residing at Vivre (Bk.), Tq. Raver, District-Jalgaon 5] The State of Maharashtra (Copy to be served on the Government Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad) 6] The Scrutiny Committee, Director of Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune .. Respondents Mr. V.T. Choudhary, Advocate for the Petitioner Respondent nos. 1,2(i) to (viii), (x) to (xiv), 3(i) to (vi), 4(i) to (vi) and 5 duly served (3) WP. 32.1993 Writ Petition stands abated as against respondent nos. 2(ix), (xv), (xvi) and 4(viii) vide Court's order dated 8.8.2003 Respondent no.3(vii) died through LRs. R.3(i) to (vi) on record. Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for the respondent no.5-State None present for respondent no.6 though served ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH JUNE, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1] By this Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgments and orders rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Rev.Trb. no. 6 of 1989 and Review Application no. 5 of 1991. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner and confirmed the order rendered by the Tahsildar for restoration of the land survey no.130/2, 0H 92 R situated at village Kumbharkheda (Tq. Raver) in favour of the respondents 1, 2 and other deceased respondents. 2] The petitioner is purchaser of the above referred agricultural land. He purchased the land from the respondent no.1, the respondent no.2 and two deceased brothers of the respondent no.2 by name Kasam and Hasan. The vendors filed proceedings bearing Adivasi case no. 67 of 1975 before the Tahsildar, Raver under section 3 of the Maharashtra (4) WP. 32.1993 Restoration of land to the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short the "Restoration Act"). They asserted that they are tribals and that their agricultural land was alienated in favour of the petitioner without any prior permission of the competent authority. They contended that they were entitled to seek restoration of the land in view of the legal embargo put on the transfer thereof. The Tahsildar allowed their application. The petitioner preferred an Appeal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the Tahsildar's judgment and held that the tribal persons (transferors) were entitled to seek restoration of the land in question. 3] Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned AGP. None appears for the other respondents. 4] The basic contention of the petitioner was that the transferees are not members of the scheduled tribe. He alleged that the vendors are "Pathans" and therefore were not entitled to seek restoration of the land in question. Mr. Choudhari would submit that the caste claim of the vendors could not be readily accepted by the Tahsildar without proper verification. He would point out that only the respondent no.2 had filed copy of the caste certificate whereas rest of the vendors had not produced any material to support the contention that (5) WP. 32.1993 they were members of scheduled tribe. He would further submit that though the vendors claim to be members of scheduled tribe, yet there is no iota of evidence to show that after conversion of religion, they continued to follow the traits and customs of the Adivasis. They did not produce any material to substantiate the claim regarding the status as members of scheduled tribe, particularly "Tadvis". 5] The learned AGP could not pin-point as to how the status of the respondents 1 and 2 and other two vendors of the petitioner was accepted as true and correct. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal observed that some of the xerox copies of the school leaving certificates did indicate status of the vendors of the petitioner as "Muslim Tadvis". The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also observed that the respondent no.1-Akbarkha had produced the attested copy of the certificate which corroborated his claim as member of scheduled tribe (Tadvi). 6] This Court, in Daulat Dhana Mali (deceased) by legal heirs Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others 1995(2) Bom.C.R. 279 and in Krushna Wasudeorao Ambekar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010(1) Bom.C.R. 110, held that the status of the claimants ought to be verified by referring the matter to the caste scrutiny committee. The necessity to verify the caste claim of the vendors of the (6) WP. 32.1993 petitioner is not fulfilled only by producing some copies of the school record. The competent committee is required to decide the status of the vendors of the petitioner on basis of available record as well as on consideration of the relevant facts including continuity of their following traits and custom of Tadvis. Considering these aspects of the matter, it will have to be said that the restoration cannot be allowed without proper verification of the status of the vendors of the petitioner, by the appropriate scrutiny committee. I am not, however, inclined to remand the matter for the purpose of verification of the status of the vendors of the petitioner and thereafter, to decide the application afresh. For, the transferees had filed the restoration application in 1975. At the relevant time, there was no necessity to produce the evidence regarding verification by the scrutiny committee. The legal requirement is envisaged after the decision rendered by the Tahsildar. 7] In this view of the matter, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- . "The Petition is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified with direction that the restoration of the land in question shall be allowed only when the respondents 1 and 2 alongwith legal representatives of other vendors will produce (7) WP. 32.1993 relevant certificates about their status as tribals (Tadvis) after due verification by the concerned scrutiny committee. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs." Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp