IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8503 WRIT PETITION NO. 8503 WRIT PETITION NO. 8503 OF 2003 OF 2003 OF 2003 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7510 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 7510 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO. 7510 OF 2003 Shri Anant Shankar Chougule ...Petitioner V/s. Shri Ganpat Gangaram Waghe & Ors. ...Respondents Shri M.R. Deshpande i/b. Shri Arun Palekar for the Petitioner. Shri S.G. Karandikar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 DATED : FEBRUARY 4, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. Both these petitions can be disposed of by a common order since the issue involved in these petitions is same. 3. In Writ Petition No.8503/2003, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai, dated 10th June, 2003 whereby the Additional Commissioner was pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner - 2 - herein and confirmed the order passed by the Collector dated 18th March, 1993. In Writ Petition No.7510/2003 the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the State Government on the application filed by the respondent herein for transfer of his lands in favour of respondent no.2 was accepted by the Government and necessary permission to exchange his lands to the lands owned by respondent no.2 was granted by the collector. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Commissioner erred in holding that he had no right, title or interest to file an appeal. He submitted that he was the original landlord in respect of the said lands and that though order was passed in favour of respondent tenant declaring him tenant way back in 1965, he had challenged that order before the MRT and the said orders passed by the authorities had become final. He submitted that the petitioner was tribal and as such, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, the Government was not entitled to grant permission for sale, exchange of lands from Tribal - 3 - to non-tribal. He submitted that the Government, therefore, erred in granting permission for the exchange of the lands of respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 who was non-tribal. 5. Both these submissions cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that 32-G proceedings have concluded in the year 1965 and the respondent no.1 had paid purchase price of the said lands and become a deemed purchaser of the said lands and and the certificate under Section 32M was also issued in his favour. The respondent no.1 admittedly is a tribal. Thereafter, he had applied to the Government seeking permission of the Collector to exchange his lands admeasuring 18 hectares 36 Ares out 21 hectares 26 Ares to the land of Mr. and Mrs.Dalvi - respondent no.2 herein. Accordingly, the competent authority after going through the record granted permission under the said Act. I do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Government or by the Additional Collector. There is no reason to interfere with the aforesaid orders. - 4 - 6. Both the writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.) (V.M. Kanade, J.)