71 WP No.11265.2015 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11265 OF 2015 KAKUJI RAMCHANDRA THAKRE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. A. Khande h/f Mr. A. M. Hajare AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. V. M. Chate *** WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8836 OF 2015 KAKUJI RAMCHANDRA THAKRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS *** Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. A. Khande h/f Mr. A. M. Hajare AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. V. M. Chate *** CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 18th August, 2026 ORDER :- 1. The petitioner has preferred the Petition challenging the judgment and order dated 19.01.2015 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 111/A/2013/J, rejecting the petitioner's appeal and endorsing the order dated 16.11.2013 rendered by the Tahsildar Ghansavangi, which had rejected the petitioner's claim for restoration of the suit land. 2026:BHC-AUG:37480 71 WP No.11265.2015 -2- 2. The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 36, ad-measuring 8A-23G situated at village Shindkhed, Taluka Ghansavangi, District Jalna. The petitioner belongs to the Bhill community (Scheduled Tribe). The petitioner’s illiterate father, Ramchandra Thakre, originally held the suit land and transferred it to a non-tribal person - Uttamrao Ramrao Ghogare, vide a sale deed dated 14.10.1965. 3. Subsequently, Uttamrao Ghogare sold the property to the predecessors of respondents 4 to 6 on 19.05.1970. Thereafter, on 23.04.2013, the petitioner presented an application before the Collector, Jalna, seeking restoration of the land under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, on the grounds that the initial 1965 sale was executed without the mandatory permission of competent authorities. The Collector relegated the proceedings to the Tahsildar Ghansavangi, who rejected the application. 4. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. During those proceedings, the respondents brought to notice that the petitioner’s father had already agitated the issue decades earlier. The Tahsildar Ambad 71 WP No.11265.2015 -3- had rejected the father's claim for restoration on 27.01.1981 and the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad subsequently dismissed the father's appeal on 22.10.1984. On finding that the dispute had already attained finality between the predecessors-in-title, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 19.01.2015 since the restoration application was barred by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court. 5. Mr. Khande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Authorities below failed to appreciate the beneficial and socio-economic welfare intent behind the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. Section 7 of the Act functions as an enabling provision that places no bar on the authorities from seeking restoration, even if an inquiry was conducted in the past. 6. The learned counsel further submits that the transaction of 14.10.1965 was inherently illegal due to the lack of prior permission. Since the present application was presented by the son and directed against the current occupants, the bar of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be 71 WP No.11265.2015 -4- applied. Hence, prayed to allow the petition. 7. The learned AGP supports the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petitions. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for litigating parties and perusing the material on record, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's father, Ramchandra Thakre, had previously invoked the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities seeking the restoration of the subject land. The said litigation concluded with the dismissal of the appeal by the Divisional Commissioner on 22.10.1984. 9. A cause of action that has been evaluated and effectively finalized between the original parties cannot be revived by successive generations. Legal heirs remain bound by the actions and final adjudications recorded against their predecessors-in-title. 10. Although the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, is undoubtedly a welfare statue enacted to protect tribal interests, it does not permit the unsettling the settled titles those have already withstood judicial or quasi- judicial scrutiny. The underlying public policy of res judicata, as 71 WP No.11265.2015 -5- enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is to ensure finality to the litigation and prevent a party from being vexed twice for the same cause. 11. Allowing the petitioner to bypass the orders of 1981 and 1984 by presenting a fresh application in 2013 would undermine judicial discipline and create uncertainty over land ownership. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the subsequent application is barred by res judicata. 12. Accordingly, the petitioner fails to establish valid and legal reasons to interfere in the order under challenge. Resultantly, the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) Omkar Joshi