wp 259-2022.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 259 OF 2022 PETITIONER : Prashant S/o Namdeorao Sangidwar, aged about 55 years, Occ. Advocate & Agriculurist, R/o. Near Jain Mandir, Deori, Tah. Deori, District Gondia. ..VERSUS.. RESPONDENTS : 1. Bhimrao S/o Asaram Puram Aged about 47 years, Occ. Labour 2. Narayan S/o Asaram Puram, aged about 53 years, Occ. Labour Nos. 1 & 2 are R/o. Sundaridand, Post. Shirpurbandh, Tah. Deori, District Gondia. 3. Biru S/o Asaram Puram, aged about 55 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Charbhata, Post. Lohara, Tah. Deori, Distt. Gondia. 4. Sohli S/o Mokashi Puram, aged about 58 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Bhagi, Post. Dawki, Tah. Deori, District Gondia. 5. Tahsildar, Deori, Tah. Deori, District Gondia. 6. The Member, Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur Division, Nagpur. 2026:BHC-NAG:13026 wp 259-2022.odt 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms Shreya Jain, Advocate h/f Mr. S.S. Dhengale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.S. Taram, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, Addl.GP for respondent/State. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 21.09.2026. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 30.09. 2026. JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. By this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 15.12.2021 passed by respondent No. 6 – Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. APL/S.T. Resto/GON-11/2020, as well as the order dated 18.08.2020 passed by respondent No. 5 – Tahsildar, Deori, in Revenue Case No. 16/LND-31/2017-18. 4. The factual matrix giving rise to the present petition is that the petitioner claims to be the owner and in lawful possession of the agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 212, area admeasuring 3.34 HR, and Gat No. 229, area admeasuring 2.60 HR, situated at Mouza Deori, Tahsil Deori, District Gondia. Gat No. 212 (Old Gat wp 259-2022.odt 3 No. 373 / Survey No. 525), acquired by the petitioner via a relinquishment deed dated 06.03.2002 executed by his maternal uncle, namely Vasant Domaji Enprediwar. Furthermore, Gat No. 229 (Old Gat No. 390 / 31) was purchased by the petitioner’s father, Late Namdeo Sangidwar, from the forefathers of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 via a registered sale deed dated 07.02.1973, pursuant to which mutation entries were duly taken on record. 5. On 17.03.2018, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 preferred an application before the Tahsildar, Deori, seeking restoration of the said lands under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1974’). It was argued by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that the subject land was originally granted by the Government to their father after their agricultural land was acquired under the Shirpur Dam Project. 6. The petitioner appeared in the proceedings, filed a reply, and pointed out the discrepancy in the land details. The petitioner also applied for certified maps; however, vide report dated 04.09.2018, the Superintendent of Land Records, Deori, communicated the non-availability of proper amalgamation maps to distinguish Gat No. 31 and Gat No. 54. The learned Tahsildar, wp 259-2022.odt 4 Deori, subsequently passed an order in the Revenue Case on 18.08.2020. 7. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. The petitioner also appeared in the matter and filed a counter-appeal. The learned Appellate Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 15.12.2021, allowed the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and quashed the order passed by the Tahsildar, leading to the filing of the present petition. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl.GP for respondent No.5/State and learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documentary evidence on record, including the registered sale deed, the relinquishment deed, and the mutation entries, were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. He submits that the application for restoration was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 beyond the statutory limitation period of 30 years. He further submits that the subject land was a government grant under a dam project and not an ancestral property, thereby falling outside the purview of the Act of 1974. 10. He further submits that the learned Tribunal made an wp 259-2022.odt 5 error in failing to consider that at the time of the execution of the sale deed in 1973, the "Gond" community in the Bhandara and Gondia districts was not officially recognized as a Scheduled Tribe, as the amendment occurred only in 1976. It is also contended that the proceedings suffer from the non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the other legal heirs of Late Namdeo Sangidwa and that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 36(a) and Section 3(4) of the Act of 1974 regarding the submission of legal heir certificates and payment of premium. 11. In the background of these facts, I have considered the contentions canvas by the learned Counsels for the respective parties and also gone through the record. It can be seen from the order of the respondent No. 5, Tahsildar Deori, that certain disputed questions of facts were raised by the parties. The said questions pertain to renumbering of Survey Numbers of lands in question. The respondent No. 5, Tahsildar Deori, proceeds on a premise that certain documents which were important and necessary for the adjudication of the matter in hand were not produced and therefore has non-suited the respondents herein. 12. Furthermore, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has interfered with the order of the respondent No. 5, Tahsildar Deori, wp 259-2022.odt 6 and has allowed the application of the respondent. It is, however, important to note that even as per the applicant’s claim that the respondent’s share in the property in question was transferred on 07.02.1973. 13. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in its impugned order, has observed that the tribe of the respondents was included and was recognized as ‘tribal’ only in the year 1976. It, therefore, follows that when the land in question was transferred, i.e. on 07.02.1973, their tribe was not recognized as a ‘tribal’ within the meaning of Section 3 of Act of 1974. The said aspect will find support in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1709/2019. In the said judgment, it is held that subsequent recognition of a tribe as a ‘tribal’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(j) of the Act of 1974 would not entitle him to seek restoration of the land transferred by him to a non-tribal and his subsequent recognition as such is of no assistance to him for the purpose of availing the benefit of Section 3 of the Act of 1974. From the record, however, it is not clear that what was the exact date when the Community of the respondent was included and recognized as a ‘tribal’ within the meaning of the Act of 1974. 14. In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the matter needs to be remanded to the respondent No. 5, wp 259-2022.odt 7 Tahsildar Deori, for deciding the same in the backdrop of the Full Bench judgment referred to above. In that view of the matter, following order is passed: ORDER i) The judgment and order dated 15.12.2021, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Appeal No. APL/ S.T.Resto/GON-11/2020, as also, the order of the respondent No. 5, Tahsildar Deori, passed on 18.08.2020 in Revenue Case No. 16/ L.N.D-31/2017-2018, are quashed and set aside. ii) The matter is remanded to the respondent No. 5, Tahsildar Deori, for deciding the same in accordance with law and in the backdrop of the judgment of the Full Bench as referred above. iii) The respondent No. 5, Tehsildar Deori, is directed to decide the matter after granting opportunity of hearing to both the parties. iv) Liberty is granted to the petitioner as also the respondents to file any additional material on record in support of their respective contentions. 15. With these directions, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Jayashree .. Signed by: Mrs. Jayashree Pethe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/10/2026 10:47:37