Only the tribals were made respondents.
In the order dated 28.03.1989, the revisional authority entered a finding that the land was liable to be restored.
The order reads as follows ORDER This case is started suo motu.
It was found that the land was sold by the tribal to the number tribal on 12.07.1971.
The order passed by the revisional authority was challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.
Adivasi Revision Case number 4 of 1985 be called for, and after examining the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 28th March 1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik be quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon on 31st December, 1975 in Adivasi case number 29 of 1975 be restored Neither the State of Maharashtra number the Collector in 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 impleaded as parties in the Petition.
1170 of 1989.
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.
However, restoration was declined and order dated 31.12.1975 was passed dropping the proceedings on the ground that the tribal was number prepared to purchase the land.
The file was hence closed.
The High Court in the impugned judgment dated 26/27.07.2005 took the view that the Commissioner companyld number have exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Act since the same was exercised beyond a period of three years.
The order dated 31.12.1975 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon was set aside.
The provisions of sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply to the filing of such appeal.
Under the proviso to Section 7 of the Act, the revisional authority has to exercise the suo motu powers 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.
71 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 number tribal after 1957.
The transferee belongs to Non Tribal companymunity.
The suit land belongs to the Shri Gulab Dagadu and etc.
who is a member of Tribal Communities.
The case was fixed for hearing on 22.12.1975 and after hearing the case is dropped on the following grounds The transferor Shri Gulab Dagadu Tadvi and Supadu Dagadu Tadvi are number willing to purchase the land.
A Record and proceedings of the impugned order dated 28th March, 1989, passed in LR.
Thereafter, it appears, in 1985, the Additional Commissioner, Nasik under Section 2 of the Act, the Commissioner includes Additional Commissioner initiated 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.
The number tribal transferee, since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, is the appellant.
In litigation on welfare 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 companycerned are impleaded for proper defence and effective assistance.
He sold the suit land to Shri Sandu Dayaram on 27.5.1971 for Rs.12,000/ .
The main prayer under the Petition reads as follows 9.
Gulab, since deceased and represented by his legal heirs, is the respondent herein.
KURIAN, J. The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 hereinafter referred to as the Act was introduced to provide for the restoration of certain lands to persons belonging to the scheduled tribes.
