- (1.) RULE. Heard forthwith. 1. The relevant facts having bearing on the subject-matter of this petition are briefly summarised hereunder :--- (a) By a registered sale deed dated 30th April 1973 the petitioner purchased 4 acres of land out of land bearing Survey No. 28/1/a of village Pimpalshenda from the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 claimed to be a tribal. By an order dated 10th August 1976, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mangrulpeer directed restoration of the said land by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 in view of the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. (b) The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2652 of 84 in this Court. By an order dated 16th July 1987, Shri Justice Qazi, J. , dismissed the said writ petition observing in his order as under :---"the only challenge before me is on the ground of constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. That point has already been concluded by the decision reported in A. I. R. 1985 Supreme Court 389 (Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar v. State of Maharashtra and another) In view of this, nothing survives. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. " (c) On 10th July 1988, the Revenue Inspector factually and actually restored the possession of the said land to the respondent No. 2 as admitted by the petitioner in this petition. (d) The petitioner thereafter filed Letters Patent Appeal in this Court being L. P. A. No. 54 of 1988. The said appeal was time barred. The petitioner applied for condonation of delay. By an order dated 14-7-1988. , S/shri Justices Mohta and Patel, JJ. , dismissed the said appeal by observing as under :---Heard Shri Shende. Perused papers. The land has been restored to a tribal under the provisions of the Act. No. 14/1975. The only point raised before the learned Single Judge was about validity of the Act. As validity is upheld by the S. C. the petition was rejected. That the respondent was a tribal was an admitted position before the S. D. O. Under the circumstances, the contention that the respondent is not a tribal cannot be considered at this stage. Apart from that prima facie aspect, no case for condonation is disclosed. Application rejected".
(2.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the State of Maharashtra to restore possession of the said land to him and for a further direction to the State Government to consider the gravity of the situation arising out of the erronecus interpretation and erroneous application of law in the earlier cases.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the recent cases the Court has taken a view that the tribal concerned must be the tribal on the date of transfer. On principles anologous to res-judicata, it is not possible for the Court to allow the petitioner to reopen the said controversy at this late stage. The petitioner cannot reopen the entire litigation already concluded years ago merely because of change in interpretation of the provisions of the Act in subsequent rulings, if any.;