1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3977 OF 2010 (Yashwantrao P. Parwate vs. State of Maharashtra) 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. NOVEMBER 16, 2010. Heard Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Yengal, learned AGP for the respondent. The short contention of Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel is that reliance upon the judgment in the case of Kashibai vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 1993 Mh. L.J. 1168 by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to cover a sale transaction between the petitioner and then a non-tribal transferee dated 15.12.1969 is misconceived. He points out that caste “Pardhan” has been recognized as Scheduled Tribe for the first time for State of Maharashtra on 27.07.1977 and hence transactions between members of Pardhan community and Non-tribal prior to said date, cannot be subjected to provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 or then Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as amended in 1977. He points out that this issue of subsequent recognition of Pardhan as 2 Scheduled Tribe is specifically gone into and decided by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Tukaram vs. Piraji, reported at 1989 Mh. L.J. 815. Though subsequent Division Bench in the case of Kashibai vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra) overrules this view, according to him, the facts considered by subsequent judgment were entirely different and hence ratio in the case of Tukaram vs. Piraji (supra) still holds good insofar as present facts are concerned. The learned counsel has invited attention to various views taken by this Court subsequently by pointing out judgments relied upon in para 3 of writ petition. However, he has fairly pointed out that those judgments do not consider the judgment in Kashibai vs. State of Maharashtra. According to him, as 1993 view was not relevant, it has been rightly not considered. Attention has been invited to Constitutional Bench judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, reported at (2001) 1 SCC 4, to urge that the recognition as member of Scheduled Tribe flows only from the date it is granted by the Constitution Scheduled Tribe's order. The learned AGP has supported the impugned order. The subsequent judgments delivered by the learned Single Judges of this Court and referred to in para 3 of Writ Petition do not consider 1993 judgment as said judgment was not pointed out. It is not the position 3 that said judgment in Kashibai vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) was pointed out and thereafter it has been distinguished. In Kashibai vs. Sangapawar, (supra) the question was of effect of area restriction removal by 1976 Amendment in Constitution of Schedule Tribes Order 1950. The Division Bench has found that though area restriction which prevailed from 1950 till 1976 was removed in 1976, still the transactions in those areas (not covered till then) could be subjected to the provisions of above two enactments. The said logic also holds good in present facts and before this Court. The recognition of vendor of present petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe in 1977 does not mean that he became Scheduled Tribe for the first time in 1977. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has, therefore, rightly relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Kashibai vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra). I do not find any case made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. At this stage, upon request of Shri Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner, interim orders operating in the matter are continued for a period of six weeks more and shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. JUDGE *GS.