In Civil Appeal No.
4384 of 1984, the appellant Lingappa Pochanna Appelwar had by a registered sale deed dated November 30, 1965 purchased agricultural land bearing Survey No.
By his order dated February 19, 1977 he held that it was admitted by the appellant that his transferor Raju Meshram was a gond and therefore a tribal under s.2 1 j of the Act, that numberimprovements had been made by him on the land and that there were numberencumbrances thereon.
He therefore held that the case falls within s.3 1 of the Act and recorded that respondent No.
2 Sonerao Raju Meyhram who being a gond was a tribal within the meaning of s.2 1 j of the Act for a companysideration of Rs.
The appellant than filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court assailing the orders of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal as well as that of the Sub Divisional officer.
461.76p.
The appellant preferred an appeal under s.6 of the Act to the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur but a Single Member of the Tribunal by his order dated August 5, 1977 upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional officer.
He accordingly directed in exercise of the powers vested in him under s.3 1 ii of the Act that possession of an area of 19 acres 19 gunthas out of Survey No.
Emphasis supplied The legislation is based on the principle of distributive justice.
2 Sonerao Raju Meshram, the tribal, had given an undertaking in Form Ill that he required the land for his personal cultivation and was willing to deposit the amount fixed by him for payment to the appellant.
2 on payment of Rs.
27 be taken from the appellant and restored to respondent No.
From the Judgment and order dated 27.6.84 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A No.
135 of 1984.
S. Desai and M.N. Shroff for the respondents in both the appeals.
towards the companysideration equal to 48 times of the assessment as required by s.3 4 b after setting apart a part of the remaining portion of 1 acre 20 gunthas companyered by a dwelling house.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1064/76 decided on June 20, 1976 upheld the companystitutional validity of the Act and Civil Appeal No.
1300 with the prior permission of the Collector as required by s.47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and was placed in possession thereof.
The Sub Divisional officer initiated an inquiry, summoned the parties and recorded their statements.
147 of 84 in W.P. No.
Facts in these two appeals are more or less similar.
3288 of 1984.
A learned Single Judge by his order dated March 13, 1984 dismissed the writ petition in limine and a Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by a Division Bench by its order dated June 27, 1984.
27 having an area of 20 acres 39 gunthas from Raju Meshram, father of respondent No.
the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Vidarbha Region Act, 1958 in relation to the Vidarbha region of the State, the Hyderabad Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 in relation to the Hyderabad region of the State and the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in relation to the rest of the State.
4384 of 1984.
From the judgment order dated 21.6.84 of the Bombay High Court in L.P.A. No.
AND Civil appeal No.
Suo motu proceedings were started by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajura in District Chandrapur under s.3 1 of the Act for restoration of the lands to respondent No.
1624 of 1977.
The question is whether ss.3 and 4 of the impugned Act which provided for annulment of transfers made by members of Scheduled Tribes and for restoration of lands to them on certain companyditions were ultra vires the State Legislature as being beyond the purview of Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule or were otherwise violative of Art.
19 1 f and Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B SEN, J. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgments and orders of a Division Bench of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated June 21 and 27, 1984 and raise a companymon question relating to the companystitutional validity of ss 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.
14, Art.
B. Joshi for the appellant in both the appeals.
31 of the Constitution.
