1 wp2642.92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2642 OF 1992
1. Dhana Mohan Talele,
2. Smt. Radhabai w/o Dhana Narkhede,
3. Pandurang s/o Ramu Waghudade,
4. Nimba Shrawan Ingale,
(Since deceased through his legal
heirs : Chindhu Nimba Ingale),
All Residing at and Post Nhavi,
Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Nabab Saraj Tadvi,
2. Sitru Bahadur Tadvi-since
deceased through his legal
heirs :
a) Navsabai Sitru Tadvi,
Residing at and Post Humbardi,
Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
b) Deobai w/o Usman Tadvi,
Residing at and Post Borkhede,
Taluka Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon.
c) Nurjabai w/o Nurkha Tadvi,
since deceased no heirs.
3. Sherkha Dalpat Tadvi (deceased),
4. Vajirkha Rahimkha Tadvi,
(Since deceased through his
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
2 wp2642.92
legal heirs :
i) Najir Vajir Tadvi,
Residing at Marul,
Tal. Yawal, Dist.Jalgaon.
ii) Bismilla Vajir Tadvi,
Residing at Pal, Tal. Raver,
District Jalgaon.
5. Supadu Sahadur Tadvi,
6. Dagadu Shahadu Tadvi,
7. Ughadu Sardar Tadvi (deceased).
8. Alimat Imam Tadvi (Since deceased)
through his legal heirs :
Bhikabai Alimat Tadvi,
Nos.1,5,6 and 8 all residing at
and post Humbardi, Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon.
9. Fauskha Mithu Tadvi (since deceased)
through his legal heirs :
a) Chandkha Maru Tadvi (deceased),
b) Kulsam w/o Ismail (deceased),
c) Mayaram w/o Nashirkha (deceased).
10. The State of Maharashtra.
11. The Scrutiny Committee,
Director of Tribal Research
and Training Institute, Pune.
12. Tahasildar, Yawal,
District Jalgaon.
13. Circle Officer, Faijpur,
Tal. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon. ...RESPONDENTS
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
3 wp2642.92
...
Mr. V.T. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondents.
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09-03-2011
PRONOUNCED ON: 11-03-2011
JUDGMENT :
This Writ Petition takes exception to the
judgment and order dated 05-06-1992 passed by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No.
REV.TRB.82 of 1985 at Exhibit-B to the petition
and also to the judgment and order dated
13-04-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector,
Jalgaon, Division Jalgaon, in Adivasi Case No. 179
of 1975.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners submitted that, the Member of the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has failed to
consider the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High
Court, in many case, that if there is dispute
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
4 wp2642.92
about the status of the persons, who are claiming
themselves to be tribals then in that case, the
issue whether the persons claiming themselves to
be tribals or not, has to be decided by the
scrutiny authority. Learned Counsel further
submitted that the learned Member of the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal failed to see that,
the respondents belong to Muslim Pathan Tadvi
communities, which is not recognised as a Tribal
community under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code. Counsel further submitted that the
authorities below, failed to see that, the
respondents have embraced Islam Religion and that
being position, the advantage under this Act are
not available to them, as due to this conversion
to Muslim Religion. They can not claim themselves
as Tribals, and the said position is very clear by
a Government Resolution Adivasi Vikas Vibhag at
Survey No. 5(13).
Learned Counsel also submitted that the
Government Resolution No. CBC-1680/43669/D-V,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
5 wp2642.92
dated 28-10-1980 then Circular No.
Vati/0/482/KA-4, dated 08-02-1988 and order
No.CBC-1684/309/No.11, dated 24th April, 1985 are
totally ignored, while issuing certificate and
hence, the caste certificates are illegal and bad
in law and should be ignored completely. Learned
Counsel also submitted that the respondents have
not given undertaking as required under
Section 3(3), that they will cultivate the suit
land personally and that they will pay the amount,
as will be decided under Section 3, sub section
(3), under these circumstances the suit land
cannot be restored to the respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. for the
respondents submitted that possible view has been
taken by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and
therefore, this Court may not interfere in the
impugned judgment and order.
4. Upon hearing Counsel for the petitioner,
none of the argument advanced by the Counsel for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
6 wp2642.92
the petitioner is convincing so as to interfere in
the impugned judgment and order. However, the
contention of the petitioner that caste/tribe
claim of respondent Nos.1 to 9 should have been
referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for
verification/scrutiny, is required to be accepted
in view of the various pronouncements of this
Court. The petitioners have specifically stated
that respondent Nos.1 to 9 are not Tadvis but they
are Muslims. They have further stated that caste
certificates produced by the respondents are
false. It is further contended that their
caste/tribe certificates should have been sent to
the appropriate and competent authority i.e. Caste
Scrutiny Committee for verification/validation and
thereafter only Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal or
Tahasildar should have proceeded further to decide
the controversy before them. Therefore, the
argument of the learned Counsel for the
petitioners that the caste/tribe claim of
respondent Nos. 1 to 9 should have been referred
to the Caste Scrutiny/Verification Committee,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
7 wp2642.92
should have been accepted by the Tahsildar and
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and Tahasildar should
have referred caste/tribe claim of the
claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 9 to the Caste
Scrutiny Committee.
This Court in the cases of Raju s/o
Pundlikrao Burde vs. Esrtablishment Officer (III-
B) MSEB and another, reported in 2003(4) Mh.L.J.
780, Ulhas Bimba Choudhari and Anr, vs. Burhan
Samsa Tadvi (deceased heirs) Abbaskhan Burhan
Tadvi and others, reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. 165
and Writ Petition No.1636 of 1994 on 17th June,
2010 (Aurangabad Bench), has taken a view that in
such cases, like the case in hand, the authority
i.e. Tahasildar should refer the caste claim of
the claimants/Adivashi to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee for verification/scrutiny. Therefore, in
my opinion, the caste claim of the respondent
Nos.1 to 9 should have been referred to the
Scrutiny Committee by the Tahasildar. This Court,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
8 wp2642.92
while considering the various judgments on the
subject, has taken a view in Writ Petition
No. 1634 of 1994 that the findings recorded by the
authority i.e. Additional Commissioner, that the
respondents therein are belonging to Tadvi S.T.
category cannot be accepted since the said finding
was without jurisdiction. Therefore, this Court
in that matter has taken view to refer matter to
the Scrutiny Committee for verification and
scrutiny of tribe claim of the respondent therein.
Therefore, in my opinion, the facts of this case
are similar to the facts of this case referred
above and which are decided by this Court holding
that Tahasildar should have referred caste / tribe
claim of the claimants to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee.
In the result, the Tahasildar, Yawal,
District Jalgaon is directed to refer the
caste/tribe claim of respondent Nos. 1 to 9 to the
Caste Scrutiny Committee within one month from the
date of receipt of copy of this order.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::
9 wp2642.92
Thereafter, the Caste Scrutiny Committee to take
final decision within six months from the date of
receipt of the caste / tribe claim. If the
decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee becomes
final in favour of the contesting respondents or
petitioners herein, the concerned authority shall
ensure that the possession of land should be with
the appropriate party under the Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,
1961.
5. With the above observations, Writ
Petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute
on the above terms.
[ S.S. SHINDE, J.]
sut/Mar11/wp2642.92
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 17:05:21 :::