KAKUJI RAMCHANDRA THAKREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:37481



                                                                   71 WP No.11265.2015
                                                -1-

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 11265 OF 2015

                               KAKUJI RAMCHANDRA THAKRE
                                         VERSUS
                            STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                ***
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. A. Khande h/f Mr. A. M. Hajare
              AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. V. M. Chate
                                         ***
                                        WITH
                            WRIT PETITION NO. 8836 OF 2015

                               KAKUJI RAMCHANDRA THAKRE
                                        VERSUS
                         THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                                ***
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A. A. Khande h/f Mr. A. M. Hajare
              AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. V. M. Chate

                                                ***

                                CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                  Date : 18th August, 2026

              ORDER :-


              1.          The petitioner has preferred the Petition challenging the

              judgment    and   order   dated    19.01.2015    rendered     by    the

              Maharashtra    Revenue    Tribunal,     Aurangabad    in   Case     No.

              111/A/2013/J, rejecting the petitioner's appeal and endorsing the

              order dated 16.11.2013 rendered by the Tahsildar Ghansavangi,

              which had rejected the petitioner's claim for restoration of the suit

              land.
                                                      71 WP No.11265.2015
                                  -2-



2.           The agricultural land bearing Gut No. 36, ad-measuring

8A-23G situated at village Shindkhed, Taluka Ghansavangi, District

Jalna. The petitioner belongs to the Bhill community (Scheduled

Tribe). The petitioner’s illiterate father, Ramchandra Thakre,

originally held the suit land and transferred it to a non-tribal person

- Uttamrao Ramrao Ghogare, vide a sale deed dated 14.10.1965.



3.           Subsequently, Uttamrao Ghogare sold the property to

the predecessors of respondents 4 to 6 on 19.05.1970. Thereafter,

on 23.04.2013, the petitioner presented an application before the

Collector,   Jalna,   seeking restoration   of the   land   under    the

Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974,

on the grounds that the initial 1965 sale was executed without the

mandatory permission of competent authorities. The Collector

relegated the proceedings to the Tahsildar Ghansavangi, who

rejected the application.



4.           The petitioner challenged the said order before the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. During those proceedings, the

respondents brought to notice that the petitioner’s father had

already agitated the issue decades earlier. The Tahsildar Ambad
                                                       71 WP No.11265.2015
                                 -3-

had rejected the father's claim for restoration on 27.01.1981 and

the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad subsequently dismissed

the father's appeal on 22.10.1984. On finding that the dispute had

already attained finality between the predecessors-in-title, the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal on

19.01.2015 since the restoration application was barred by the

principle of res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.



5.           Mr. Khande, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the Authorities below failed to appreciate the

beneficial   and   socio-economic      welfare    intent   behind     the

Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.

Section 7 of the Act functions as an enabling provision that places

no bar on the authorities from seeking restoration, even if an

inquiry was conducted in the past.



6.           The   learned   counsel    further    submits    that    the

transaction of 14.10.1965 was inherently illegal due to the lack of

prior permission. Since the present application was presented by

the son and directed against the current occupants, the bar of res

judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be
                                                     71 WP No.11265.2015
                                  -4-

applied. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.



7.          The learned AGP supports the impugned orders and

prayed for dismissal of the petitions.



8.          Having heard the learned counsel for litigating parties

and perusing the material on record, it is an undisputed fact that

the petitioner's father, Ramchandra Thakre, had previously invoked

the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities seeking the restoration

of the subject land. The said litigation concluded with the dismissal

of the appeal by the Divisional Commissioner on 22.10.1984.



9.          A cause of action that has been evaluated and

effectively finalized between the original parties cannot be revived

by successive generations. Legal heirs remain bound by the actions

and final adjudications recorded against their predecessors-in-title.



10.         Although the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to

Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, is undoubtedly a welfare statue

enacted to protect tribal interests, it does not permit the unsettling

the settled titles those have already withstood judicial or quasi-

judicial scrutiny. The underlying public policy of res judicata, as
                                                     71 WP No.11265.2015
                                   -5-

enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is to

ensure finality to the litigation and prevent a party from being

vexed twice for the same cause.



11.           Allowing the petitioner to bypass the orders of 1981

and 1984 by presenting a fresh application in 2013 would

undermine judicial discipline and create uncertainty over land

ownership. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the subsequent

application is barred by res judicata.



12.           Accordingly, the petitioner fails to establish valid and

legal reasons to interfere in the order under challenge. Resultantly,

the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.



                                         (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)



Omkar Joshi