High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 4764-14-WP.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.4764 OF 2014WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9687 OF 20161.Manohar s/o. Laxman SomwareAge: 45 years, Occu: Agril.2.Janabai Sambhaji SomwareAge: 48 years, Occu: Agril.Both r/o. Ghansawangi,Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna...PetitionersVersus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Revenue Department,Mantralaya Mumbai2.The Collector,Jalna.3.The Tahsildar,Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna.4.Bhimrao Jaywanta GaikwadAge: 52 years, Occ: Agril.R/o. Ramgavhan (Kh.),Tq. Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna…Respondents…..Mr. S.B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for PetitionersMrs. M.L. Sangit, AGP for Respondents/StateMr. Avinash Khande, Advocate a/w Mr. A. M. Hajare, Advocate forRespondent No.4….. CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. RESERVED ON : 14th FEBRUARY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 21st FEBRUARY, 2025ORDER : 1.Petitioners are challenging the order dated 16/04/2013,passed by respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Ghansawangi, Dist. Jalna, inSVH 2 4764-14-WP.odtcase No.2013/Jama /ROR/CR, thereby directing restoration of land tothe extent of 1 H 21 R from Gut No.49 which was purchased bypetitioners, in favour of respondent No.4, so also the order dated02/05/2014, passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad,in Appeal No.46/B/2013/J, wherein appeal filed by petitioners underSection 315 (Schedule J) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966, is rejected.2.Respondent No.4 who claims to be belonging to BhillScheduled Tribe filed complaint before respondent No.3 Tahsildar on18/01/2011, contending that he had mortgaged his land withpresent petitioners, and therefore, he is seeking restoration of hisland in view of the Government Resolution, after conducting dueinquiry. On 26/12/2011, his children namely Shivaji BhimraoGaikwad and Suresh Bhimrao Gaikwad also filed complaint toTahsildar referring to the circular dated 05/08/2011, issued by theCollector, Jalna, contending that their father and mother havemortgaged the land against the loan, without taking their consent orinforming them, on account of which they have become landlessand are facing hardships and difficulty for their day to day survival.They requested that the land sold by their father should be restoredto them and they are ready to bear the expenses for restoration ofland by depositing whatever amount is required as per law.3.In view of the request communication addressed bySVH
Legal Reasoning
3 4764-14-WP.odtrespondent No.4 as well as his sons, inquiry was initiated againstpetitioners. The Tahsildar forwarded complaint to the DistrictCollector, Jalna, on 23/10/2012, for taking appropriate steps in viewof provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to ScheduledTribes, Act, 1974 (for short ‘the said Act’). Under the said Act,powers are vested with the Collector for restoration of land whichhas been sold by the Tribal to Non-Tribal without obtainingnecessary permission from the Collector.4.It is the contention of petitioners that they havereceived notice from Tahsildar on 22/01/2013, requiring them toremain present in the Tahsil Office on 04/02/2013 with reference tocancellation of Mutation Entry No.345 in Gut No.49. It is thecontention of petitioners that the land Gut No.49, admeasuring 14 H31 R is shown in 7/12 extract as class-1 occupant land and it is notof restricted ownership. They were not aware that respondent No.4belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, they had not obtainednecessary permission from the Collector. The transaction has takenplace on 23/05/2001, for valuable consideration of Rs.97,000/-.Therefore, they cannot be evicted from the land by resorting toprovisions under the said Act and Section 36A of the MaharashtraLand Revenue Code.5.It is further submitted that respondent No.4 haspurchased the suit land on 31/03/1990 from Mr. Dagdabai ShankarSVH 4 4764-14-WP.odtMohite and Arjun Shankar Mohite. Therefore, there is no restrictionon sale of such land which is not allotted by the Government, asrespondent No.4 himself has purchased the said land, from openmarket.6.The Tahsildar, Ghansawangi, by letter dated 05/01/2012informed the Circle Office, Ghansawangi, to conduct inquiry inrespect of complaint against the petitioners. Accordingly the reporthas been sent to the Tahsildar on 20/01/2012. It is the contention ofpetitioners that inquiry was carried out ex-parte without giving anyintimation to them. During the inquiry statement of respondent no.4has been recorded and a Panchanama was conducted. The reportwas forwarded along with remarks of the Tahsildar, to the Collector,Jalna. Inquiry report suggested that respondent No.4 who belongs toScheduled Tribe has sold his land in Gut No.49 to the extent of 1 H21 R from village Ramgavhan, by registered sale deed No.3461 on23/05/2001, in favour of Manohar Laxman Somware and JanabaiSambhaji Somware, and consequent Mutation Entry No.345 hasbeen recorded pursuant to the sale deed. A complaint is receivedthat the transaction was not of sale but it was a mortgage and thecomplainant being Tribal person he is seeking restoration of hisland.7.Relying on the report prepared by Talathi whichsuggested that the land in question is in possession of presentSVH 5 4764-14-WP.odtpetitioners, the Tahsildar recommended to the Collector that stepsare required to be taken in furtherance of the provisions of the saidAct and reference was given to the circular dated 14/07/2009, sincethe land has been unauthorisedly transferred from Tribal to non-Tribal person.8.The Collector, Jalna, after receiving report from theTahsildar has directed the Tahsildar to conduct an inquiry withregard to transfer of land from Tribal to non-Tribal. AccordinglyTahsildar has conducted inquiry proceedings by issuing notices tothe respective parties. After recording the statements of respectiveparties and also taking into consideration the report as well asdocuments produced by the respective parties, the Tahsildar haspassed order on 16/04/2013, holding that the land in question isowned by applicant No.4, who is undoubtedly Tribal and he isclaiming restoration of his land. The transfer of land is contrary tothe provisions under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land RevenueCode. Therefore, it was directed that possession of the land behanded over to respondent No.4. It is further observed that, afterappeal period is over the possession should be handed over torespondent No.4 and a compliance report to that effect should besubmitted to the office.9.Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners havepreferred Appeal under Section 315 of the Maharashtra LandSVH 6 4764-14-WP.odtRevenue Code, which came to be dismissed by the MaharashtraRevenue Tribunal, Aurangabad.10.It is the contention of petitioners that they have raisedvarious grounds in the revision filed before MRT in their memo ofrevision as well as in the written notes of arguments, which are asunder:-(1) The notice received by petitioners was intimation regardinghearing for cancellation of mutation entry. Therefore, they wereunder the impression that the hearing was in respect of cancellationof mutation entry.(2) According to them, they have purchased the land for valuableconsideration of Rs.97,000/- and the land is class-1 occupant landwithout any encumbrance on the land. Even respondent No.4 haspurchased the suit land and is not an allottee of the land under anyGovernment scheme.(3) Inquiry which was conducted by Talathi was cursory inquiry anddetailed inquiry is contemplated under the said Act. In present case,only statement of respondent No.4 has been recorded along withpanchanama and report has been forwarded to Tahsildar, on thebasis of which Tahsildar has passed the impugned order. Theprocedure carried out by revenue authorities is contrary to theprovisions under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land RevenueCode.(4) Objection is also raised as regards the absence of proof inSVH
Decision
7 4764-14-WP.odtsupport of the claim that respondent No.4 is belonging to ScheduledTribe category.11.Learned advocate for petitioners emphasized thatSection 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code contemplatesdetailed inquiry by the Collector and in present case such inquiry isnot conducted by the Collector. Under the garb of inquiry merelystatement of respondent No.4 has been recorded and panchnamahas been conducted. Therefore, proper procedure as contemplatedunder Section 36A of conducting detailed inquiry has not beenadhered to. Learned advocate for petitioners has placed reliance onSub-section (5) of Section 36A wherein it is provided that, “wherethe Collector decides that any transfer of occupancy has been madein contravention of sub-section (1), he shall declare the transfer tobe invalid, and thereupon, the occupancy together with thestanding crops thereon, if any, shall vest in the State Governmentfree of all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in such manner asthe State Government may, from time to time, direct”.12.According to him, the Collector has not taken steps ascontemplated in Sub-section (5) and has merely directed return ofthe possession of land to respondent No.4. It is his contention thatduring the inquiry respondent No.4 has not produced any proof thathe belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Unless there is a proof that personclaiming restoration of land belongs to Tribal community,SVH 8 4764-14-WP.odtrespondent authorities are not empowered to exercise powers underSection 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code or Section 3 of thesaid Act. According to him respondent No.4 did not possess anycaste validity certificate when the proceedings were taken up beforethe Tahsildar as well as MRT. Respondent No.4 has subsequentlyobtained caste validity certificate which is also challenged bypetitioners and challenge to the same is pending before this Court.According to him, the very genesis of return of land to Tribal underboth the enactments is that the Tribal is deprived of his land due toillegal transfer made without prior permission of the Collector.13.It is further contended by petitioners that even theybelongs to Dhangar community. Though it comes in OBC category inthe State of Maharashtra, however, in other States his communitycomes under Nomadic Tribe. Therefore, the land of person belongingto Other Backward Classes cannot be taken under the guise ofrestoration of land to the Tribal by resorting to Section 36A of theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code.14.Reliance is placed by learned advocate for petitioners incase of Kaniram Jagannath Lokhande Vs. State ofMaharashtra, reported in 1976 (9) CPMH 37, wherein it isobserved that the enactment confers drastic power on the Collector.Citizens are deprived of their right and possession of, the landspurchased by them bonafide by this summary procedure. The onlySVH 9 4764-14-WP.odtsafeguard against such drastic action lies in ensuring scrupulousadherence to the procedure required to be followed by the collector,so that the affected citizens get sufficient opportunity, to have theirsay in the matter and, have their defence properly adjudicated,before their title to the property is destroyed and they are finallydeprived of the possession of the land.15.In the judgment relied by the petitioner no details weregiven to the petitioner regarding the reason for issuance of noticeand time on which petitioners were required to appear in the Court.The intention of the said notice was not clear. Therefore, it isobserved by the Court that when enactment itself requires that anotice is to be issued in the prescribed form and intimation ofcertain facts to be given to the addressee in advance by way ofsafeguard against the danger implicit in such summary procedure,there is no reason why the same have not been complied with andadhered to scrupulously. Since, the petitioners were put to a veryshort notice and notice was bereft of details, the notices issuedwere quashed. The decision in the above case is not applicable tothe facts of the present case.16.Learned advocate for respondent No.4 submitted that asper Section 36A, in case of the land belonging to Tribal is purchasedby the non-Tribal without permission of the Collector, there isrestriction on such transfers. A transfer of land by a Tribal to non-SVH 10 4764-14-WP.odtTribal by way of gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or otherwise ispermissible except with the previous permission of the Collector. Ifno permission is granted by the Collector, the transaction becomesvoid and illegal, and if any complaint is made by a Tribal, the land inquestion is required to be restored to the complainant Tribal. Neitherprovisions of the said Act, nor Section 36A presupposes that theland should have been allotted by the Government or its natureshould be a class-2 occupant. Even if it is a free land which ispurchased by a Tribal and classified as occupant class-1 land,restoration under Section 36A is very much applicable to suchtransfers also.17.He further submitted that though petitioners areclaiming that they were not aware that respondent No.4 belongs toScheduled Tribe, this contention is falsified by the written statementfiled by petitioners before Tahsildar. In their reply, they havecategorically stated that respondent No.4 belongs to Bhillcommunity and he has man power and money in abundance,therefore, he is exerting pressure on petitioners. The statement inthe reply filed before Tahsildar itself reflects that petitioners werevery much aware that respondent No.4 belongs to Bhill community.He has also pointed out the entry in 7/12 extract which shows thename of respondent No.4 as Bhimarao Gaikwad, Bhill. Hence,according to him, even though petitioners are claiming that theySVH 11 4764-14-WP.odtwere not aware that respondent No.4 belongs to Bhill community, itis not correct, since 7/12 extract also reflect that respondent No.4belongs to Bhill community.18.It is further contended by learned advocate forrespondent No.4 that transfer of land from Tribal to non-Tribal is nottotally barred. However, it is made subject to prior permission of theCollector. In case of transfer of land from Tribal to non-Tribal the non-Tribal has to make application to the Collector seeking permissionfor transfer. In present case, it was the duty of petitioners to makeapplication to the Collector to get such permission and thereafterpurchase the land. Since the condition of Section 36A has beenbreached, it was brought to the notice of Collector by respondentNo.4 by making complaint and restoration of land was prayed byfollowing due procedure of law.19.So far as objection of petitioners regarding non-adherence to Section 36A(5) is concerned, learned advocate forrespondent No.4 submits that Section 36A(4) provides that, where itis noticed that any occupancy has been transferred in contraventionof sub-section (1), the Collector shall, either suo motu or on anapplication made by any person interested in such occupancy or ina resolution of the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas, hold an inquiryin the prescribed manner and decide the matter. From reading ofSection 36A(4) it is clear that Collector is empowered to conductSVH 12 4764-14-WP.odtinquiry even suo motu or on an application made by any personinterested in such occupancy. Therefore, the Collector hasconducted the inquiry and accordingly decided the matter.20.Tahsildar as well as MRT has appreciated Section 36A ofthe Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The MRT after carefulconsideration of the said Act, has passed order, whereby directiongiven by the Tahsildar for restoration of land by taking possessionfrom present petitioners and handing it over to the complainantrespondent No.4 has been confirmed. As regards objection ofpetitioners that respondent No.4 has not produced any castevalidity certificate is concerned, it is submitted by respondent No.4that it is not necessary to produce caste validity certificate in orderto prove caste of complainant. Learned advocate for respondentNo.4, therefore, submits that writ petition filed by petitionersdeserves to be dismissed.21.Learned advocate for respondent No.4 has placedreliance on the order dated 22/04/2010 passed by this Court atNagpur Bench in Writ Petition No.1582/1998 (Smt. Parvatibai w/oBapuji Jumde Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others), whereinthis Court has observed that certificate issued by ExecutiveMagistrate to substantiate that respondent No.4 therein the Tribalbelongs to Gond-Scheduled Tribe is sufficient in order to restore theland from non-Tribal to Tribal and in view of that the order ofSVH 13 4764-14-WP.odtrestoration was upheld by this Court.22.Respondent No.4 has also relied on the judgment of thisCourt in Writ Petition No.2174/1991 (Shri Fakira Shankar Patil Vs.Shri Roopchand Pandit Bhill and Another), wherein it is observedthat the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove thatrespondent do not belong to Bhill Scheduled Tribe.23.Learned AGP Ms. M.L. Sangit, has placed reliance on theaffidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 Tahsildar, Ghansawangi.According to her, the sale deed has been executed by petitionerswithout adhering to Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land RevenueCode. There is no substance in the allegation of petitioners thatrespondent No.4 has not filed his caste certificate during the inquiry.In fact, the caste certificate in support of the claim has been filed byrespondent No.4 during the inquiry. It is also denied thatpanchanama and inquiry was conducted behind the back ofpetitioners. The matter was inquired through concerned circleofficer who conducted inquiry by visiting the spot. According torespondent No.3 after conducting inquiry necessary notices wereissued to both the parties and after hearing them and perusing thedocuments, order has been passed by the Tahsildar on validgrounds. Learned AGP further relied on the Government Resolutiondated 31/05/2012, wherein restrictions have been imposed on thesale transaction of land of Tribal in favour of non-Tribal person.SVH 14 4764-14-WP.odt24.I have heard the respective parties, grounds ofchallenge to the inquiry and orders passed by the Tahsildar and theMRT are already referred hereinabove. The contention of petitionersthat appropriate procedure has not been followed as provided underSection 36A does not appear to be correct. From the order ofTahsildar it is evident that proceedings before Tahsildar werepreceded by an inquiry. So far as inquiry is concerned it is asummary inquiry and no procedure as such has been prescribedunder Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code orSection 3 of the said Act. Therefore, there is no substance in theallegation of petitioners that procedure provided under Section 36Ahas not been followed.25.Record indicates that statement of respondent No.4 hasbeen recorded wherein he has categorically stated that he hasexecuted sale deed since he was in need of money, he has sold theland in favour petitioners. He has categorically stated in thestatement that he belongs to Bhill community, and therefore, he isseeking restoration of his land.26.Even in the panchanama it has been categoricallystated that the land was belonging to respondent No.4, who belongsto Bhill community and it was transferred in favour of petitioners.On the basis of inquiry, the report was forwarded to the Collector byTahsildar. Tahsildar is delegated with the powers to restore the landSVH 15 4764-14-WP.odtto the Tribal from non-Tribal. After conducting inquiry and givingopportunity of hearing to the parties, Tahsildar has arrived at aconclusion that there is contravention of condition as providedunder Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, since nopermission or sanction has been obtained by the non-Tribal beforepurchasing land of the Tribal. Hence, there is no error in the findingrecorded that the transfer of land was without prior permission ofCollector, and therefore, attracted Section 36A of the MaharashtraLand Revenue Code, 1966.27.The other issue that is agitated by petitioners is thatrespondent No.4 has not produced caste certificate or any validitycertificate, which is necessary in order to establish that he belongsto Bhill community which comes under Scheduled Tribe categoryand the Tahsildar should have referred the caste certificate forverification to the caste verification committee. So far as thiscontention is concerned, the MRT has categorically observed thatcaste certificate of respondent No.4 is of the year 1991, and it’sattested copy has been placed on record which supports the standof respondent No.4 that he belongs to Bhill community. So far asabsence of validity of caste certificate is concerned the MRT hasobserved that certificate is issued in the year 1991, by the TalukaExecutive Magistrate who was competent authority in the year 1991for issuing validity in view of circulars issued by the State ofSVH 16 4764-14-WP.odtMaharashtra. The MRT by placing reliance on the judgment of thisCourt in Raju Pundlikrao Burde Vs. Establishment Officer (III-B) Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Another, reportedin 2004 (3) Bom.C.R. 460, has held that the caste certificate ofrespondent No.4, which is placed on record, is duly attested byTahsildar itself as it was issued in the year 1991, therefore, it washeld that there is no necessity to refer the same to ScrutinyCommittee. In view of the observations made in that judgment theMRT has recorded that there is no necessity of validity certificate tobe produced in respect of caste certificate issued by the ExecutiveMagistrate which was validated by the appellate authority.28.Learned advocate for respondent has placed reliance onthe judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.1582/1998 (Smt.Parvatibai w/o Bapuji Jumde Vs. The State of Maharashtra andOthers) dated 22/04/2010, wherein on the basis of certificate issuedby the Executive Magistrate which was placed on record tosubstantiate that petitioner belongs to Gonda Scheduled Tribe, theland has been restored to her in terms of Section 3 of theMaharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1974,and this Court has observed that orders passed by the authoritiescannot be faulted with. The caste certificate was found to besufficient for restoration of land to the Tribal under the provisions ofthe said Act. Even otherwise, learned advocate for respondent No.4 hasSVH 17 4764-14-WP.odtplaced on record caste validity certificate, which has been issued infavour of respondent No.4 on 14/11/2014. Therefore, though thecaste validity certificate is issued after the order is passed by theMRT on 02/05/2014, the objection regarding caste certificate andcaste validity certificate would not be relevant or decisive fordeciding present writ petition considering that respondent No.4 isholding caste validity certificate while the writ petition is heardfinally. Hence, the question of referring the matter back to theTahsildar in order to get the caste certificate verified does not arise.Though learned advocate for petitioner has challenged the castevalidity granted in favour of respondent No.4 in separateproceedings, as yet there is no decision in the said proceedings. 29.So far as contention of petitioners that land in questionwas a clear title without any encumbrance and it was not allotted bythe Government and is categorized as class-1 land, therefore it wasnot necessary to obtain the permission of Collector prior topurchase of said land is concerned, the same is not tenable in viewof provisions imposing restriction under Section 36A on the transferof occupancy of Tribal. Section 36A of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code reads thus:“36A. Restrictions on transfers of occupancies by Tribals:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)of Section 36, no occupancy of a tribal shall, after thecommencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Codeand Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974, be transferredin favour of any non-tribal by way of sale (including salesSVH 18 4764-14-WP.odtin execution of a decree of a Civil Court or an award ororder of any Tribunal or Authority), gift, exchange,mortgage, lease or otherwise, except on the application ofsuch non-tribal and except with the previous sanction -(a) in the case of a lease, or mortgage for a period notexceeding 5 years, of the Collector; and(b) in all other cases, of the Collector with the previousapproval of the State Government : Provided that, no suchsanction shall be accorded by the Collector unless he issatisfied that no tribal residing in the village in which theoccupancy is situated or within five kilometres thereof isprepared to take the occupancy from the owner on lease,mortgage or by sale or otherwise.(2) The previous sanction of the Collector may be given insuch circumstances and subject to such conditions as maybe prescribed.(3) On the expiry of the period of the lease or, as the casemay be, of the mortgage, the Collector may,notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the timebeing in force, or any decree or order of any court oraward or order of any Tribunal or Authority, either suomoto or on application made by the Tribal in that behalf,restore possession of the occupancy to the tribal.(4) Where, on or after the commencement of theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws(Amendment) Act, 1974, it is noticed that any occupancyhas been transferred in contravention of sub-section (1)[the Collector shall, notwithstanding anything contained inany law for the time being in force, either suo moto or onan application made by any person interested in suchoccupancy, [within thirty years from the 6th July, 2004]]hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and decide thematter.(5) Where the Collector decides that any transfer ofoccupancy has been made in contravention of sub-section(1), he shall declare the transfer to be invalid, andthereupon, the occupancy together with the standing cropsthereon, if any, shall vest in the State Government free ofall encumbrances and shall be disposed of in such manneras the State Government may, from time to time, direct.(6) Where an occupancy vested in the State Governmentunder sub-section (5) is to be disposed of, the Collectorshall give notice in writing to the tribal-transferor requiringhim to state within 90 days from the date of receipt ofsuch notice whether or not he is willing to purchase theland. If such tribal-transferor agrees to purchase theoccupancy, then the occupancy may be granted to him ifhe pays the prescribed purchase price and undertakes toSVH 19 4764-14-WP.odtcultivate the land personally; so however that the totalland held by such tribal-transferor, whether as owner ortenant, does not as far as possible exceed an economicholding.”30.Upon careful reading Section 36A it reveals that not onlytransfer by way of sale but even the gift, exchange, lease, mortgageor otherwise which is made in contravention of Section36A(1) haveto face consequences as laid down in Section 36A (4) and (5). Inpresent case, since complaint is received and after due inquiry itwas found that prior permission of Collector was not obtained ascontemplated under Section 36A(1)(b). The transaction ofpetitioners is hit by sub-section (4) and accordingly, the orderscame to be passed by the Tahsildar as well as MRT. Upon carefulreading of Section 36A as well as Section 3 of the said Act, it isevident that it is responsibility of the non-Tribal transferee to obtainprior permission from the Collector before he purchase or exchangeor whatever transaction he resorts to for transfer of land from Tribalperson, if the transferee fails to obtain prior permission, it is at hisown risk and peril.31.Provisions under the said Act and Section 36A are thesafeguards for illegal transactions which are rampant in the societywherein Tribal persons are the sufferers and are rendered landlessafter parting with their lands. Hence, in order to avoid unscrupuloustransactions, safeguards have been provided under the said Act aswell as Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.SVH 20 4764-14-WP.odt32.In view of the observations made herein above, I do notfind that there is any perversity in the findings recorded by theTahsildar as well as Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Summaryprocedure required to be followed before passing the order hasbeen followed by the Collector. Respondent No.4 possess a castecertificate and therefore, there is no doubt that he belongs to Bhillcommunity which is a Scheduled Tribe. It is established by theinquiry conducted by the Tahsildar that transaction taken placebetween petitioners and respondent No.4 is hit by Section 36A sinceno previous permission of Collector was obtained before executionof sale deed. Therefore, the Tahsildar has appropriately passed theorder directing restoration of land to respondent No.4, which isupheld by the MRT.33.Hence, in my opinion, the orders passed by both theauthorities do not deserve any interference. The writ petition is,therefore, dismissed.34.Accordingly, the civil application also stands disposed of. (MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.)SVH