SANDU (D) BY LRS. versus GU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 334, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A 
B 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 334 
SANDU (D) BY LRS. 
v. 
GU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3470 of2006) 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2015. 
[M. Y. EtiBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes 
Act, 197 4 - ss. 4, SA and 7 - Proceedings u/s. 4 dropped by 
C orderdated-31.12.1975, on the ground that the tribal was not 
prepared to purchase the land -
In 1985 initiation of 
proceedings u/s. 7 by revisional authority after the 
Government accorded sanction - Revisional authority held 
0 
that the tribal land was liable to be restored- Writ petition by 
transferee challenging order of revisional authority - High 
Court allowed the petition on the ground that the revisional 
jurisdiction u/s. 7, having been exercised beyond a period 
of 3 years, was barred by limitation- On appeal, held: When 
E the proceedings uls. 7 are initiated on getting sanction from 
the State Government, the same can be initiated beyond the 
period of 3 years- In the circumstances of the case, the power 
exercised by the revisional authority is within reasonable 
period and hence not barred by limitation- The proceedings 
F uls. 4 cannot be dropped even if the tribal-transferor is not 
interested in getting back his land- The Collector is required 
to procee.d further to divest the non-tribal transferee and pass 
order for vesting the land in the State Government - Matter 
remitted to High Court to decide the matter on merit -
G Limitation. 
Practice and Procedure - Writ
petition challenging the 
order passed under Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to 
scheduled Tribes Act - Non-impleadment of State or its 
H 
334
SAN DU (D) BY LR~. v. 1uiJLAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 335 
authorities - Held: In litigation on welfare legislations, the A 
court should see that the Government and the authorities 
concerned are impleaded for proper defence and effective 
assistance - Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled 
Tribes Act, 1975. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Under the proviso to Section 7 of 
Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes 
Act, 197 4, the revisional authority has to exercise the suo c 
motu powers within three years from the date of the order 
passed by the Collector. Where the State Government 
accords sanction for initiation of the revision uls. 7, the 
proceedings can be initiated beyond the period of three 
years, within a reasonable time from the date of o 
permission given by the Government. In the present 
case, the direction is issued by the State Government in 
1982 and the revisional authority has initiated 
proceedings in 198S. In the given circumstances, the 
power exercised by the revisional authority is within a E 
reasonable time. [Para 9) [343-G-H; 344-A-B] 
2. In a proceeding duly initiated uls. 4 of the Act, even 
if a tribal transferor is not interested to get back his land 
by refunding the purchase price or for other reasons F 
indicated under Section SA of the Act, the Collector 
cannot drop the proceedings, as has been done in the 
instant case. The Collector has to proceed further and 
divest the non-tribal transferee of the
tribal land and pass 
a further order vesting the land in the State Government G 
for being distributed to the other deserving tribals. [Para 
10) [344-E-F] 
3. The High Court has rested its finding on vesting 
of the land in Government uls. SA of the Act mainly on H
336 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A the ground that the C~mmissioner could not have 
entertained the revision beyond three years. However, 
even according to the High Court, the non-tribal 
transferee is to be divested of his possession and 
ownership, though the land was not liable to be restored 
B to the original tribal transferor. Once it is held that the 
revision was within time, the High Court has necessarily 
to see whether land could have been restored to the 
tribal transferor as held by the revisional authority. The 
Writ Petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh 
C consideration in accordance with law. [Paras 10 and 11] 
[344-D; F] 
4. In litigation on welfare legislations intended to 
benefit the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or other 
D weaker sections, the High Court should see that the 
State Government and the authorities concerned are 
impleaded for proper defence and effective assistance. 
The State of Maharashtra, the revisional authority who 
are not impleaded as parties in the petition, shall be 
E impleaded as parties in addition to the affected party. 
(Paras 8 and 11] [343-D-E; 344-H] 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
3470 of2006 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26/27.07.2005 of 
the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench atAurangabad 
in Writ Petition No. 1170of1989. 
Shivaji M. Jadhav,Anish R. Shah for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. 1. The Maharashtra
Restoration of Lands to 
Scheduled Tribes Act, 197 4 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
Act') was introduced to provide for the restoration of certain 
H lands to persons belonging to the scheduled tribes. It has been
SAN DU (D) BY LRS. v. GU LAB (0) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 
337 
[KURIAN, J.] 
notified on 01.11.1975. Under Section 4 of the Act, the A 
restoration is contemplated in respect of transactions on or 
after 1st day of April, 1957. Section 4 reads as follows: 
"4. Restoration of lands of persons belonging to 
Scheduled Tribes. Where any land of a Tribal is, at any . B 
time on or after the 1st day of April 1957 and before the 
6th day of July 197 4, purchased or deemed to have been 
purchased or acquired under or in accordance with the 
provisions of the relevant tenancy law by a non-Tribal-
transferee or where any acquisition has been regularised C 
on payment of penalty under such law and such land is in 
possession of a non-Tribal transferee and has not been 
put to any non-agricultural use on or before the 6th day of 
July 1974, then the Collector shall, notwithstanding 
anything contained in any law for the time being in force, D 
either suo motu at any time or on an application by the 
Tribunal made 1 [within thirty years from the 6th July 2004] 
and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, direct that 
the land shall, subject to the provisions of subsection ( 4) 
of section 3, be restored to the Tribal free form all E 
encumbrances and that the amount of purchase price or 
a proportionate part thereof, if any, paid by such non-
Tribal-transferee in respect of such lands in accordance 
with the relevant tenancy law shall be refunded to such F 
non-Tribal-transferee either
lump sum or in such annual 
installments not exceeding twelve (with simple interest 
at 4 Yi per cent. per annum) as the Collector may direct. 
The provisions of clauses (d), (e), (f) and (g) of sub-
section (4) of section 3 shall, so far as may be, apply in G 
relation to the recovery of the amount from the Tribal and 
payment thereof to the non-Tribal-transferee and the 
persons claiming encumbrances, if any : 
Provided that, where land is purchased or acquired by a H
338 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
non-Tribal-transferee before the 6th day of July 197 4, after 
such transferee was rendered landless by reason of 
acquisition of his land fora public purpose, then only half 
the land so purchased or acquired shall be restored to 
B 
the Tribal-transferor." 
2. Under Section SA of the Act, lands which belonged to 
the tribals and coming under the purview of the Act which cannot 
be restored to the original tribals, vest in Government and such 
lands are to be granted to other tribals subject to prescribed 
C restrictions. 
"SA. (1) Where any land (not being land acquired in 
exchange), which is liable to be restored to a Tribal-
transferor under sub-section ( 1) of section 3 cannot be 
o 
so restored either on account of the failure of the Tribal-
transferorto give an undertaking referred to in sub-section 
( 3) of section 3 or for any reason whatsoever or where 
ariy land referred to in section 4 cannot be restored to 
the Tribal by reason of such Tribal expressing, during the 
E 
inquiry held by the Collector, his unwillingness to refund 
the purchase price or proportionate part thereof to the 
non-Tribal-transferee, as required by the said section 4, 
or for any other reason, then, the Collector may, subject 
to rules, if any, made in that behalf, by order in writing 
F 
direct that the land shall, with effect from the date of the 
order, be deemed to have been acquired and vest in the 
/ 
State Government free from all
encumbrances. 
(2) On such vesting of the land, the non-Tribal-transferee 
G 
shall be entitled to receive from the State Government 
an amount equal to 48 times the assessment of the land, 
plus the value of the improvements, if any, made by the 
non-Tribal-transferee therein. The provisions of clauses 
(b) aod (c) of sub-section (4) of section 3 shall mutatis 
H 
mutandis apply for determining the value of
SANDU (D) BY LRS. v. GU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 
339 
[KURIAN, J.] 
improvements and for apportionment of the A 
encumbrances, if any, on the land between the non-Tribal-
transferee and the persons claiming encumbrances on 
the land. 
(3) The land so vested in the State Government under B 
sub-section ( 1) shall, subject to any general or special 
orders of the State Government in that behalf, be granted 
by the Collector to any other Tribal residing in the village 
in which the land is situate or within five kilometers thereof 
and who is willing to accept the land in accordance with C 
the provisions of the Code, and the rules and orders 
made thereunder and to undertake to cultivate the land 
personally; so however, that total land held by such Tribal 
whether as owner or tenant does not exceed an 
economic holding within the meaning of sub-section (6) 
D 
of section 36A of the Code. 
( 4) The person to whom land is granted under sub-section 
(3), shall pay to the State Government the amount 
referred to in sub-section (2), either in lump sum or in 
E 
such annual instalments not exceeding twelve (with 
simple interest at 4Y2 per cent. per annum) as the 
Collector may direct and shall hold the land subject to 
such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. 
F 
( 5) Wit_hout the previous sanction of the Collector, no land 
granted under subsection (3) shall be transferred, 
whether by way of sale (including sale in execution of a 
decree of a Civil Court or of an award
or order of a 
competent authority) or by way of gift, mortgage, G 
exchange, lease or otherwise. Such sanction shall not 
be given otherwise that in such circumstances and on 
such conditions including condition regarding payment 
of premium or nazarana to the State Government, as may 
be prescribed: 
H
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
Provided that, no such sanction shall be necessary where 
the land is to be leased by a serving member of the 
armed forces or where the land it to be mortgaged as 
provided in sub-section ( 4) of section 36 of the Code for 
B 
raising a loan for effecting any improvement on such land. 
( 6) 'ff sanction is given by the Collector to any transfer 
under sub-section ( 5), subsequent transfer of the land 
shall also be subject to the provisions of subsection (5). 
c 
(7)Any transfer of land, and any acquisition thereof, in . 
contravention of subsection (5) or (6), shall be invalid; 
and as a penalty therefor, any right, title or interest of the 
transferor and transferee in or in relation to such land 
shall, after giving him an opportunity to show cause, be 
o 
forfeited by ihe Collector; and the land together with the 
standing crops thereon, if any, shall without further 
assurance vest in the State Government and shall be 
disposed of in such manner as the State Government 
E 
F 
G 
H 
may, from time to time direct." 
3. Section 6 of the Act provides for an appeal to the 
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 
"6. Appeal. ( 1) An appeal against any decision or order 
passed by the Collector may, notwithstanding anything 
contained in the Code, be made to the Maharashtra 
Revenue Tribunal constituted under the Code. 
(2) Every such appeal shall be made within a period of 
sixty days from the date of receipt of the decision or order
of the Collector. The provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 
14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to the filing of 
such appeal. 
(3) In deciding an appeal under sub-section (1), the 
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall exercise all the
SAN DU (D) BY LRS. v. GU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 
341 
[KURIAN, J.] 
powers which a Court has subject to the regulations A 
framed by that Tribunal under the Code and follow the 
same procedure which a Court follows, in decidin!!J 
appeals from the decree or order of an original Court 
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)." 
B 
4. Section 7 of the Act provides for revision. 
"7. Revision. 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 direction of the c 
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 0 
as to the r!=?gularity 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 E 
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 be 
F 
heard." 
5. The Assistant Collector, Jalgaon in the State of 
Maharashtra initiated proceedings under Section 4 of the Act 
as per notice dated 03.12.1975 in respect of land Gat. No. 71 
G 
measuring 2 hectares and 7 ares on the ground that the land 
originally
belonged to the tribal and as the same was 
transferred to a non-tribal after 1957. It was found that the land 
was sold by the tribal to the non-tribal on 12.07 .1971. However, 
restoration was declined and order dated 31.12. 1975 was 
H
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
passed dropping the proceedings on the ground that the tribal 
was not prepared to purchase the land. The order reads as 
follows: 
B 
c 
"ORDER 
This case is started suo motu. The suit land belongs to 
the Shri Guiab Dagadu and etc. who is a member of Tribal 
Communities. He sold the suit land to Shri Sandu 
Dayaram on 27.5.1971 for Rs.12,000/-. The transferee 
belongs to Non-Tribal community. 
The case was fixed for hearing on 22.12.1975 and after 
hearing the case is dropped on the following grounds:-
(1) The transferor Shri Guiab Dagadu Tadvi and Supadu 
D 
Dagadu Tadvi are not willing to purchase the land." 
The file was hence closed. Guiab, since deceased and 
represented by his legal heirs, is the respondent herein. The 
non-tribal transferee, since deceased and represented by his 
E legal heirs, is the appellant. 
6. Thereafter, it appears, in 1985, the Additional 
Commissioner, Nasik (under Section 2 of the Act, the 
·Commissioner includes Additional Commissioner) initiated 
F suo motu proceedings under Section 7 of the Act, after the 
Government granted the sanction under Section 7 of the Act 
by letter dated 10.05.1982. In the order dated 28.03.1989, the 
revisional authority entered a finding that the land was liable to 
be restored. The order dated 31.12.1975 passed by the 
G Assistant Collector, Jalgaon was set aside. 
7. The order passed by the revisional authority was 
challenged before the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, 
Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No. 1170 of 1989. The 
H main prayer under the Petition reads as follows:
SAN DU (D) BY LRS. v. GU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 
343 
[KURIAN, J.] 
"9. (A) 
Record and proceedings of the A 
impugned order dated 28th March, 1989, passed in LR. 
Adivasi Revision Case number 4 of 1985 be called for, 
and after examining the legality, validity a!"d propriety of 
the impugned order dated 28th March 1989 passed by 
the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik be B 
quashed and set aside and the order passed by the 
Assistant Collector, Jalgaon on 31•t December, 1975 in 
Adivasi case number 29of1975 be restored" 
8. Neither the State of Maharashtra nor the Collector (in C 
the instant case, the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon), who passed 
the order under Section 4 of the Act or the revisional authority 
(in the instant case, the Additional Commissioner, Nasik 
Division), was imp leaded as parties in the Petition. Only the 
tribals were made respondents. In litigation on welfare D 
legislations intended to benefit the Scheduled Tribes, 
Scheduled Castes or other weaker sections, the High Court 
should see that the State Government and the authorities 
concerned are impleaded for proper defence and effective 
assistance. 
E 
9. The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 26/ 
27.07.2005 took the view that the Commissioner could not 
have exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 7 of 
the Act since the same was exercised beyond a period of three 
F 
years. As a matter of fact, the Government of Maharashtra had 
accorded sanction for the
revision by its order dated 
10.05.1982 and the revisional proceedings had been initiated 
apparently in 1985. Under the proviso to Section 7 of the Act, 
the revisional authority has to exercise the suo motu powers G 
within three years from the date of the order passed by the 
Collector except in a case where a direction is issued in that 
regard by the State Government. Where the State Government 
accords sanction for initiation of the revision under Section 7 H 
of the Act, the proceedings can be initiated beyond the period
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 S] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
of three years. In such a case, the revisional proceedings will 
not be vitiated on the ground that the same is hit by limitation 
of the period of three years as prescribed under Section 7 of 
the Act. But the proceedings should be initiated within a · 
reasonable time from the date of permission given by the 
B Government. In the case before us, the direction is issued by 
the State Government in 1982 and it appears the revisional 
authority has initiated proceedings in 1985. In the give 
circumstances, we are of the view that the power exercised by 
the revisional authority is within a reasonable time. 
c 
10. The High Court has rested its finding on vesting of the 
land in Government under Section SA of the Act mainly on the 
ground that the Commissioner could not have entertained the 
revision beyond three years. However, even according to the 
D High Court, tt:ie non-tribal transferee is to be divested of his 
possession and ownership though the land was not liable to 
be restored to the original tribal transferor. On a proceeding 
duly initiated under Section 4 of the Act, even if a tribal 
transferor is not interested to get back his land by refunding 
E the purchase price or for other reasons indicated under Section 
SA of the Act, the Collector cannot drop the proceedings, as 
has been done in the instant case. The Collector has to proceed 
further and divest the non-tribal transferee of the tribal land 
F and pass
a further order vesting the land in the State 
Government for being distributed to the other deserving tribals. 
But in the instant case, once it is held that the revision was 
within time, the High Court has necessarily to see whether land 
could have been restored to the tribal transferor as held by the 
G revisional authority. 
11. The impugned order is hence set aside, the Writ 
Petition is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in 
accordance with law. The State of Maharashtra, the revisional 
H authority and the original authority shall be impleaded as 
parties in addition to the affected party. The appeal is allowed

SAN DU (D) BY LRS. v. GU LAB (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS 345 
[KURIAN, J.] 
as above. We request the High Court to dispose of the Writ A 
Petition preferably within six months from the date of receipt 
of copy of this judgment. 
12. 
There shall be no order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal allowed.