1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1304 OF 1991 1. Shabbirkha Hatamkha Musalman } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Chinawal, Tq. : Raver, } Dist. : Jalgaon. } 2. Bashirkha Hatamkha Musalman } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Chinawal, Tq. : Raver, } Dist. : Jalgaon. } 3. Watadkha Hatamkha Musalman } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Chinawal, Tq. Raver, } Dist. : Jalgaon. } 4. Musakha Mamkha Musalman } Age : Major, Occ. : Agriculture, } R/o : Chinawal, : Tq. Raver, } Dist. : Jalgaon. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Namdar Hasan Tadvi } Deceased by his heirs : } Supdu Namdar Tadvi etc. } At and Post Lohara, } Tq. Raver, Dist. : Jalgaon. } 2. Usman Gulab Tadvi } Deceased by his heirs : } 2 Haidar Usman Tadvi etc. } At and Post Vivare, Tq. } Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. } 3. Jafar Gulab Tadvi } Deceased by his heirs } Ramjan Jafar Tadvi etc. } At and Post Vivare, Tq. } Raver, Dist. : Jalgaon. } 4. Sikandar Kabir Tadvi } At and Post Lohare, Tq. } Raver, Dist. : Jalgaon. } 5. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal } Bombay Camp at Jalgaon } ( Formal party ) } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate holding for Mr. V.T. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. N.H.Borade, A.G.P. for State. CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10/02/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Herein petitioners challeng Judgment and Order rendered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 5 of 1989 on 26th October, 1990. 3 2. The petitioners are purchaser of agricultural lands bearing S.No. 120/1-A, admeasuring 3 H. 43 Rs. and S.No. 120/1-B, admeasuring 1 H. 15 Rs. situated at village Kumbharkhede under Raver Tahsil. The respondent nos. 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of vendor of the petitioners. The Tahsildar, Raver initiated enquiry vide Adivasi Case No. 68-A/68-B of 1975 against the petitioners under the provisions of Section 3 ( 3 ) of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 ( For short, ‘ the Restoration Act ’ ). The Tahsildar held that the alienation was illegal in as much as no permission was obtained from the competent authority. The Tahsildar further held that the petitioners were not entitled to continue with the possession. He directed restoration of the said two ( 2) parcels of the lands in favour of Adivasi transferors. The petitioners impugned the order of the Tahsildar by filing Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ( For short, ‘ M.R.T. ’ ). The M.R.T. by virtue of the impugned order, remanded the matter for afresh enquiry. The M.R.T. held that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 were using surname as ‘ Pathan ’ whereas Caste Certificate indicated the caste claim as ‘ Tadvi ’. The M.R.T. further held that enquiry was necessary as regards caste claims of the respondent nos. 1 to 4. It was held that unless the transferors were held as Adivasis, the proceedings under section 3 (3) of the Restoration Act were not maintainable. The M.R.T. directed the Tahsildar to make afresh enquiry and to pass further orders. 4 3. The petitioners allege that there was no need to make further enquiry. They allege that the respondent nos. 1 to 4 could not be treated as tribals, even on face value, because all along they were recognized as ‘ Pathans ’. The petitioners further allege that all the legal representatives of the vendors were not parties to the proceedings and hence restoration of the lands could not have been ordered. 4. It is pertinent to note that Rule was issued along with interim relief on 11/6/1991. There is already a considerable delay in conducting the enquiry. 5. It is unfortunate that proper enquiry is stalled at the instance of the petitioners. In fact, the M.R.T. directed afresh enquiry having regard to the objections raised by the petitioners. Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, holding for Mr. V.T. Choudhari, would submit that the proceedings should have been terminated when the tribal claim was not proved. I do not agree. It is well settled that even amongst Mohemadans, there are members of OBC, SC and NT. The original status as “ tribal ” will not be superseded due to conversion of religion. So, even though the respondent nos. 1 to 4 were recognized as ‘ Pathans ’, yet their original status as tribals can not be eclipsed. They would remain as tribals for all the purposes. They can not be denied the benefit of section 3 ( 3) of the Restoration Act. It is amply clear that the M.R.T. gave due opportunity to the petitioners to establish their 5 contentions during the enquiry to be undertaken by the Tahsildar. 6. Considering the above reasons, I do not wish to render any finding on merits. The impugned Judgment and order of the M.R.T. is quite legal and proper. No interference is called for. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. [ V.R.KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE knp/WP 1304.91