RAMJAN SANDU TADAVI DIED AND OTEHRSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:4318
                                                     1                WP 3495-2016.odt


                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 3495 OF 2016

             1.     Ramjan Sandu Tadavi (died)

             2.     Nawab @ Nabu Sandu Tadavi (died)

             3.     Jasubai Nawab @ Nabu Tadavi
                    Age : 71 years, Occ. : Agri.,

             4.     Samser Nawab @ Nabu Tadavi,
                    Age : 56 years, Occ. : Agri.,

             5.     Yesubai Nawab @ Nabu Tadavi,
                    Age : 54 years, Occ. : Agri.,

             6.     Nazir Nawab @ Nabu Tadavi,
                    Age : 51 years, Occ. : Agri.,

             7.     Raju Nawab @ Nabu Tadavi,
                    Age : 49 years, Occ. : Agri.,

                    All R/o. : Giradgaon, Tq. Yawal,
                    Dist. Jalgaon                                 … PETITIONERS

                                               VERSUS
             1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                    Though its District Collector,
                    Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon


             2.     The Tahsildar, Yawal,
                    Tq. Yawal, Dist. Jalgaon

             3.     Shridhar Bondru Dhangar (died)
                    Through his legal heirs

             3-A. Purshottam Shridhar Dhangar
                  Age : Major, Occ. : Agri.,

             3-B. Parvatabai Shridhar Dhangar
                  Age : Major, Occ. : Household
                                         2                     WP 3495-2016.odt


3-C. Prabhabai Narayan Dhangar
     Age : Major, Occ. : Household,

3-D. Sarlabai Digambar Dhangar
     Age : Major, Occ. : Household,

      All R/o. : Giradgaon, Tq. Yawal,
      Dist. Jalgaon

      At present R/o. : Nhavi (Dhangarwada)
      Tq. Yawal Dist. Jalgaon                          … RESPONDENTS
                                      …
Mr. Vijay B. Patil – Advocate for Petitioners
Ms. D.S. Jape – AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, State
Mr. V.T. Choudhari – Advocate for Respondent Nos.3A to 3D
                                      …
                      CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                      DATE          : 28.01.2026

JUDGMENT:
1.    Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

the parties at the stage of admission.

2.    There is no particular dispute in respect of factual aspects in the

matter that in 1967 land had been transferred by predecessors of present

petitioners to respondent No.3 – Shridhar Bondru Dhangar. After

enforcement of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribe Act,

1974, there had been order by an authority to restore lands pursuant to

provisions of aforesaid enactment. Aggrieved by said decision, revision

had arisen before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal under

its order dated 30.06.1977 had held lands are not liable for restoration at

all and had dropped the proceedings.
                                     3                         WP 3495-2016.odt


3.    Mr. V.B. Patil, learned advocate for the petitioners, contends that

having regard to that the petitioners are tribals and are ignorant, they

were not aware of that movement would have to be made against order

passed in 1977. He submits that the fact that the petitioners being poor

and labourers should receive its due. He further submits that the

petitioners realized that order passed by the Tribunal in 1977 will have to

be posed with challenge in further proceedings after publication of news

in daily newspaper “Divyamarathi” on 7th June, 2012. They became

aware of that the State Government had extended time limit for filing

proceedings for restoration of lands. Accordingly, they had approached

Tahsildar's office and had collected information, taken efforts and this

petition had been moved. He, therefore, urges to intervene in the matter

and consider the request made under the writ petition.

4.    Mr. V. T. Chaudhari, learned advocate appearing for respondent

Nos. 3A to 3D, at the outset, submits that the very claim of petitioners

being tribals has no basis and has been considered to be so under the

orders of the Tribunal. This very relevant aspect involved in the matter

has not been touched upon anywhere in the writ petition. He submits

that there involves enormous delay and laches and there is no veracity

underlying the claim being made about the petitioners being poor and

ignorant, about proceedings to be taken up or otherwise. He submits that

the petitioners and their predecessors were wise enough to prosecute the
                                    4                         WP 3495-2016.odt


matter thrice and while they realized that there is no point in moving

ahead after the final verdict had been rendered by the Tribunal in 1977

and had, therefore, abandoned their efforts to stake claim to the property

as tribals. He submits that the cause being shown about news item

making them aware about extension of time limit in 2012, is also an

untenable excuse for the same would not benefit the petitioners in any

way. It is absolutely not applicable to the petitioners' case. He submits

that there is no other reason beyond the petitioners being poor and

ignorant. He submits that having regard to the decision having been

rendered on merits by the Tribunal and there has been attempt to

challenge the same in review, it would not be said that petitioners were

poor and ignorant. They had not been successful in the same. The

petitioners are now estopped from challenging final orders after such a

huge lapse of time. He submits that in fact petition would be a case of

abuse of process of law. He submits that apart from aforesaid, delay and

laches have not been properly explained at all. There is no substance in

the claim of petitioners being ignorant having regard to prosecution had

lasted at their instance from the year 1976. It is not a case that

petitioners were not aware of that adverse orders will be required to be

challenged before higher authority or court. Plea of ignorance being

claimed by the petitioners is not available to them and is certainly not a

good and sufficient reason after so much of lapse of time. He submits that

ignorance and the poor economic conditions are merely subterfuge and
                                         5                         WP 3495-2016.odt


having no semblance of truth in the same.

5.       Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2, State authorities

submits that going by the events as those have occurred from 1967 to

1977, there appears to be quite long lapse of time and the matter appears

to be hit by delay and laches. In the circumstances, he supports

respondent Nos. 3A to 3D.

6.       The final order has been passed on merits by the Tribunal and that

had although been attempted to be challenged, it had not fructified. The

matter further had not been prosecuted at all. Beyond that the petitioners

being ignorant and poor, there are no reasons. Even said claim had not

been lent credence with any supporting material. Regard may be had to

that cause being given for now approaching this court, been publication

of news item in 2012, yet, even approach is made two years thereafter. In

the absence of any credible material being placed on record in support of

cause for inability, in approaching the court within reasonable time, it

appears that it would not be proper for this court to indulge into request

being made under the writ petition.

7.       Writ petition, as such, is not being entertained and is dismissed.

Rule stands discharged.

8.       Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



                                      [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ]
Pooja Kale/