High Court dismissed a Writ Petition challenging an order of restoration of land to respondents. The Court held the 1974 Act applied as Pardhis were recognized as Scheduled Tribes in 1950, and refused to reappreciate facts under Article 226.
The Writ Petition failed and was dismissed with no costs awarded to any party.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1 W.P. 127.1992
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 127 OF 1992
Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 25/01/2012.
Mr. S.A.Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.D.Patnoorkar, Advocate for Resp. No. 2-A-1.
PER COURT :
2 W.P. 127.1992
Rana Rajput community. This aspect should have been considered by the Court. The learned counsel further contended that Pardhi community was included in the list of the Scheduled Tribe in the year 1976 in the Maharashtra region. The transaction is prior to that i.e. it is of the year 1969. As such, the said Act would not be applicable to the present transaction. This aspect also has not been properly considered by the authorities.
3 W.P. 127.1992
[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 127.1992
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 applies when the transaction pre-dated the inclusion of the Pardhi community as Scheduled Tribes.
Whether the High Court should reappreciate facts regarding the community status of respondents when found by the Revenue Tribunal.
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the restoration of land order should succeed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar V/s State of Maharashtra and anotherReferred¶13
Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar V/s State of Maharashtra and another reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court – 389 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
S.V. GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
