Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 98188 OF 2020
Kisan Songya Bangara, )
Age : 30 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, )
Residing at Valsind, Taluka Bhiwandi, )
District – Thane. )… Petitioner
Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 )
2. The Collector, Thane )
3. The Deputy Collector, Collector Ofce, Thane )
4.The Divisional Commissioner, )
Konkan Division, Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur, )
Navi Mumbai – 400 614 )
5. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development )
Authority, having its ofce at Bandra Kurla Complex, )
Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 )
6. Shri Vijendra Shamlal Sharma, )
PA - Kanchan P Dhuri
Residing at New Davashish Building, Eastern Express )
Highway, Thane. )… Respondents
…......
Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate alongwith Mr. Surel Shah and Mr. Amey
Sawant for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Sabrad alongwith Ms. Neha Parte for Respondent No.6.
Mr. S.B. Kalel, AGP for the State.
…......
DATED : APRIL 20, 2021.
JUDGMENT
1. By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioner interalia seeks the following relief: “(b) That by an appropriate writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 28.10.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 Collector, Thane thereby refusing to grant prior approval u/s. 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 as well as the letter dated 5.10.2020 issued by the Respondent No.1 herein to the Respondent No.2 thereby intimating that prior approval u/s. 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 cannot be granted to the Petitioner and further be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.[1] and 2 to grant its prior approval u/s. 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for disposing of his land bearing Survey No.46/2, admeasuring 12.[1] Ares and Survey No.46/3, admeasuring 61.[7] Ares, both situate at Mouje Valshind, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane.”
2. By consent of the Parties, the above Petition is taken up for fnal hearing at the stage of admission.
3. The brief facts in the matter are set out hereunder:
3.1. According to the Petitioner, he and his other family members are tribals and owners of land bearing Survey No.46/2, admeasuring 12.[1] Ares and Survey No.46/3, admeasuring 61.[7] Ares, both situate at Mouje Valshind, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane (‘the said Land’).
3.2. Since the Petitioner and his family members were in need of money, they were looking out for a purchaser who was desirous of purchasing the said Land.
3.3. Respondent No.6 – Vijendra Shamlal Sharma agreed to purchase the said Land of the Petitioner.
3.4. There is an embargo on the sale of land belonging to tribals, i.e. if a tribal wants to sell his land to a non-tribal, he is required to obtain permission (as specifed in Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land revenue Code, 1966) from the Collector and/or the State Government.
3.5. On 14th July, 2014, the Petitioner made an Application to the Respondent No.2 – Collector, Thane for obtaining the necessary sanction.
3.6. After the said Application dated 14th July, 2014 was made by the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2 – Collector, forwarded the same to the concerned Tahsildar to carry out an enquiry and submit a report. The Tahsildar, Thane forwarded his Report to the Respondent No.2 – Collector on 29th December, 2014. The Deputy Collector, Thane also forwarded his Report dated 1st January, 2015 to the Respondent No.2 - Collector.
3.7. According to the Petitioner, inspite of receipt of the Reports as aforestated, the Respondent No.2 did not proceed further and kept the Application of the Petitioner, pending. On several occasions, the Petitioner and the representative of Respondent No.6 had visited the Ofce of the Respondent No.2 - Collector. However, no steps whatsoever were taken by the Respondent No.2 - Collector to expedite the decision on the Application of the Petitioner, and instead all along only evasive replies were given by the Ofce of the Respondent No.2 - Collector.
3.8. In the above circumstance, on 17th January, 2019, Respondent No.6proposed purchaser, made an Application to the Respondent No.2 – Collector, pointing out that the land bearing Survey Nos.46/2 and 46/3 as regards which permission for sale was sought by the Petitioner, are shown under reservation by Respondent No.5 – Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (‘MMRDA’). The Respondent No.6 informed the Respondent No.2 – Collector, that since the said Land is under reservation, the Respondent No.6 is ready and willing to purchase the same on ‘as is where is’ basis and that in future, the Respondent No.6 – proposed purchaser, would make use of the said Land as may be permitted by the
3.9. Respondent No.2 – Collector thereafter forwarded his Report to Respondent No.4 – Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Navi Mumbai on 12th February, 2019. In the said recommendation, Respondent No.2 – Collector specifcally mentioned that the Respondent No.6 vide his Application dated 17th January, 2019, had shown his readiness and willingness to purchase the said Land and put the same to such non-agricultural use which would be permitted by Respondent No.5.
3.10. Thereafter, Respondent No.4 – Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, issued a letter to the Respondent No.2 - Collector stating therein that from his recommendation it was not clear for which particular non-agricultural purpose the said Land would be put to use and whether such user would be permissible.
3.11. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 – Deputy Collector, Thane, issued a letter to the Petitioner and informed him that it was not clear as to for which nonagricultural purpose the said Land would be used and whether such user would be permissible.
3.12. According to the Petitioner, pursuant to the receipt of the Letter dated 16th May, 2019, Respondent No.6 personally met Respondent No.3 - Deputy Collector, Thane, on 3rd June, 2019 and informed him that since the said Land is shown under reservation, Respondent No.6 is ready and willing to purchase the said Land on ‘as is where is’ basis and would also make use of the said Land as may be permitted by Respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 also informed Respondent No.3, that on 17th January, 2019 itself, the Respondent No.6 had made an Application and placed on record his readiness and willingness to purchase the said Land on ‘as is where is’ basis and to make use of the said Land as may be permitted by Respondent No.5.
3.13. According to the Petitioner, sometime in the frst week of October 2020, the Respondent No.6 was informed from the Ofce of the Respondent No.1 that since the said Land was under reservation for playground and that there was no access road, hence permission under Section 36A could not be granted.
3.14. Thereafter, the Petitioner received a Letter dated 28th October, 2020 from Respondent No.2 - Collector which is impugned herein, whereunder the Petitioner was informed that the said Land is shown under reservation for playground vide Reservation No.PG-7, that there is no mention as to the purpose for which the said Land would be used; there is no access road available to the said Land; and as such permission under Section 36A of the said Code cannot be granted.
3.15. The above Letter dated 28th October, 2020 was addressed to the Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 – Collector, based on the Letter issued by Respondent No.1 – State of Maharashtra to Respondent No.2 – Collector, informing the Respondent No.2 – Collector that prior permission could not be granted for the very same reasons mentioned in the above Letter dated 28th October, 2020.
3.16. The Petitioner has therefore fled the above Writ Petition praying for the relief set out in paragraph 1 above.
4. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has, after setting out the above facts, submitted as follows:
4.1. That the reason behind not granting prior approval under Section 36A, is in view of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 (‘the said Rules’). Rule 4 provides that under the said Rules published by the Government of Maharashtra, Respondent No.2 can grant permission for sale of the said Land where it is being sold for any bonafde nonagricultural purpose. It is further submitted that under Section 36A there is no such restriction regarding sale of land for any bonafde agricultural purpose.
4.2. That the family of the Petitioner is very large and three sisters of the Petitioner are of marriageable age and in view of the weak fnancial condition of the Petitioner, he is not in a condition to perform their marriage. There are also school going children to whom the Petitioner wants to give better education but due to his weak fnancial condition, the Petitioner and his family members are not in a position to do so. Similarly, there are senior citizens in his family who require medical attention, but again because of his weak fnancial condition, the Petitioner and his family members are not in a position to provide the same to them. All these facts were brought to the notice of the Respondents, which the Respondents have not taken into consideration.
4.3. That the Respondent No.6 - purchaser is ready and willing to purchase the said Land on ‘as is where is’ basis. Respondent No.6 has also undertaken that he would make use of the said Land and carry out such non-agricultural use that would be permitted by Respondent No.5-MMRDA i.e. Planning Authority. Inspite of such undertaking being given, the Respondent Nos.[1] to 4 have not granted permission to sell the said Land, on the ground that non-agricultural purpose for which the said Land is being sold is not set out in the Application of the Petitioner.
4.4. As regards the reason given that there is no approach road, in the recommendation dated 15th December, 2016 of the Sub Divisional Ofcer, Bhiwandi Division, Bhiwandi to the Respondent No.3, it is clearly mentioned that the road is available from the land bearing Survey No.46/1, which is also owned by the Petitioner.
4.5. That the Petitioner has learnt that in similar cases where the lands were shown under reservations and permission was sought from the State Government, prior permission under Section 36A was granted by the State Government and the Collector. In view thereof, the act of refusal to grant permission under Section 36A to the Petitioner by the State Government on the ground that the said Land is shown under reservation, is wholly discriminatory and as such warrants interference at the hands of this Court.
4.6. That instead of protecting the interest and welfare of the Petitioner and his family members who admittedly are poor tribals, unable to fnance the education of their children, the marriage of young girls in their family and give medical treatment to the senior members of their family, the Respondents have after a delay of several years, decided to leave the Petitioner and his family members in complete penury by not granting permission to the Petitioner under Section 36A to sell the said Land on grounds which are baseless and untenable, thereby causing harm, injury and prejudice to the Petitioner and his family members.
5. Mr. Adhik Subhash Patil, Tahsildar, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane, has fled his Afdavit dated 18th February, 2021 on behalf of Respondent Nos.[1] to 4, wherein he has stated as under:
5.1. That it appears from the record of Respondent No.5 - MMRDA that the subject Land is reserved for playground.
5.2. That the ‘parties’ have informed the Respondents that the process to change the zone of the subject Land is going on and the Respondent No.6 is willing to use the subject Land as per the proposed zone which may be decided by the authority in future. In view thereof, it prima facie shows that even at this juncture the Respondent No.6 does not know for which specifc purpose he is willing to use the said tribal land and in view thereof, his claim/willingness is premature and does not survive for applying the said provision of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code or Rule 4 of the said Rules and his intention/request is based on surmises and conjecture.
5.3. That there is also a possibility that the concerned Special Planning Authority may keep the zone intact and/or will not alter/change the present zone, or even earmark it for other public purpose.
5.4. That since the subject Land is reserved for playground and even the use and zone of the said Land in future is not yet notifed, in such circumstances the reasons for refusal of permission are just and proper.
5.5. That even as per the present status of the zone, the tribal holders are entitled to get compensation/consideration for the said Land from the concerned authority during acquisition of the said Land for use as playground. Thus, in any case the right of the tribal is otherwise also protected and he is entitled to get compensation/consideration for the said Land, when he surrenders the said Land in the acquisition process for reservation purpose.
5.6. It is submitted that Section 36A as well as Rule 4 are legislated/framed to protect the interest of the tribals belonging to weaker sections of society, who have been subjected to varied and worst types of exploitation by taking undue advantage of their backwardness, weakness and helplessness.
5.7. That there is no approach road from the said Land.
5.8. That the proposed use of Respondent No.6 is uncertain and therefore, the claim is not tenable in law.
5.9. That the Petitioner has not given the details of other instances where permission under Section 36A is granted despite the said Land being reserved for public purpose. However, every transfer application is judged on the basis of its own diferent grounds/reasons and therefore there is no substance in the contention of the Petitioner.
5.10. That the rejection has been made not only on the ground that the said Land is reserved, but there are also other grounds/reasons as stated above and therefore there is no substance in the contentions of the Petitioner.
5.11. That the Petition therefore deserves to be dismissed.
6. The Petitioner has fled his Afdavit-in-Rejoinder dated 27th February, 2021, wherein they reiterated the permission granted by the State Government to the tribals for sale of the land for non-agricultural purpose despite the land being under reservation, such permissions are at page Nos.101 to 104 and 107 to 110 of the said Afdavit-in-Rejoinder.
7. The Learned Advocate for the Petitioner has reiterated the submissions which are set out in paragraph 4.[1] to 4.[6] above and has also drawn our attention to the permissions which have been granted by the State Government to the tribals to sell their lands to non-tribals, despite their lands being reserved for public purpose.
8. The Learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.[1] to 4 has also repeated and reiterated the submissions made by him in his Afdavit dated 18th February, 2021, which are already set out in paragraph 5.[1] to 5.11.
9. We have considered the submissions advanced by the Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner as well as the AGP representing Respondent Nos.[1] to 4.
10. Section 36A pertains to restrictions on transfers of occupancies by Tribals and the same is reproduced hereunder: “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 the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974, be transferred in favour of any non-tribal by way of sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or an award or order of any Tribunal or Authority), gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or otherwise, except on the application of such non-tribal and except with the previous sanction – (a) in the case of a lease, or mortgage for a period not exceeding 5 years, of the Collector; and (b) in all other cases, of the Collector with the previous approval of the State Government. Provided that, no such sanction shall be accorded by the Collector unless he is satisfed that no tribal residing in the village in which the occupancy is situate or within fve kilometers thereof is prepared to take the occupancy from the owner on lease, mortgage or by sale or otherwise. Provided further, that in villages in Scheduled Areas of the State of Maharashtra, no such sanction allowing transfer of occupancy from tribal person to non-tribal person shall be accorded by the Collector unless the previous sanction of the Gram Sabha under the jurisdiction of which the tribal transferor resides has been obtained. Provided also that, in villages in Scheduled Areas of the State of Maharashtra, no sanction for purchase of land by mutual agreement, shall be necessary, if, –
(i) such land is required in respect of implementation of the vital Government project; and
(ii) the amount of compensation to be paid for such purchase is arrived at in a fair and transparent manner. Explanation. – For the purposes of the second proviso, the expression “vital Government project” means project undertaken by the Central or State Government relating to National or State highways, Railways or other multi-modal transport projects, electricity transmission lines, Roads, Gas or Water Supply pipelines canals or of similar nature, in respect of which the State Government has, by Notifcation in the Ofcial Gazette, declared its intention or the intention of the Central Government, to undertake such project either on its own behalf or through any statutory authority, an agency owned and controlled by the Central Government or State Government, or a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 or any other law relating to companies for the time being in force. (2) The previous sanction of the Collector may be given in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (3) On the expiry of the period of the lease or, as the case may be, of the mortgage, the Collector may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or any decree or order of any court or award or order of any Tribunal or Authority, either suo moto or on application made by the Tribal in that behalf, restore possession of the occupancy of the tribal. (4) Where, on or after the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974, it is noticed that any occupancy has been transferred in contravention of subsection (1) the Collector shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, either suo motu or on an application made by any person interested in such occupancy, or on a resolution of the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas within thirty years from the 6th July, 2004 hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and decide the matter. (5) Where the Collector decides that any transfer of occupancy has been made in contravention of sub-section (1), he shall declare the transfer to be invalid, and thereupon, the occupancy together with the standing crops thereon, if any, shall vest in the State Government free of all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in such manner as the State Government may, from time to time, direct. (6) Where an occupancy vested in the State Government under sub-section (5) is to be disposed of, the Collector shall give notice in writing to the tribal-transferor requiring him to state within 90 days from the date of receipt of such notice whether or not he is willing to purchase the land. If such tribal-transferor agrees to purchase the occupancy, then the occupancy may be granted to him if he pays the prescribed purchase price and undertakes to cultivate the land personally; so however that the total land held by such tribal-transferor, whether as owner or tenant, does not as far as possible exceed an economic holding. Explanation – For the purpose of this Section, the expression “economic holding” means 6.48 hectares (16 acres) of jirayat land or 3.24 hectares (8 acres) of seasonally irrigated land, or paddy or rice land, or
1.62 hectares (1 acres) of perennially irrigated land, and where the land held by any person consists of two or more kinds of land, the economic holding shall be determined on the basis of one hectare of perennially irrigated land being equal to 2 hectares of seasonally irrigated land or paddy or rice land or 4 hectares of jirayat land.”
11. Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975. Sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Rule 4 reads thus:
12. From the above it is clear that Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code prohibits transferring the occupancy rights of a tribal in favour of a non-tribal, except with the previous sanction of the Collector, and that too where the period of lease or mortgage does not exceed 5 years, or with the previous sanction of the Collector and the previous approval of the State Government in other cases, which will include transfer by sale, gift etc. Rule 4 of the said Rules requires the Collector / State to ensure that the land belonging to a tribal is sold to a non-tribal for any bonafde non-agricultural purpose. In other words, the Collector / State, has to ensure that the land sold by a tribal to a non-tribal is used by the purchaser for non-agricultural purpose.
13. As held in several judgments, the object behind framing such a legislation imposing restrictions with regard to the sale of lands belonging to the tribals to non-tribals, is that the tribals being members of the weaker sections of society, have been and can be exploited by taking undue advantage of their fnancial weakness, their general backwardness and helplessness. In fact, as aptly put by the Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment in the case of Raoji and etc. etc. vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.1, “Promoting with special care, interest of such (weaker) sections is one of the major items of our national goals (Article 46 in part IV).” Therefore in our view, since the sole object of the Legislature is to assist and protect the interest of such weaker sections of society from social injustice and all forms of exploitation, the Collector / State Government indeed has to be cautious at the time of granting sanctions under Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code, 1966, but the authorities, including the State should also ensure that no harm / prejudice is caused to the members of such weaker sections, by rejecting their Applications seeking such sanctions / approvals only on some technical / hyper technical issue/s, without appreciating the immense fnancial problems sufered by a tribal and his family members.
14. The Petitioner and his family members are poor tribals. The family of the Petitioner is very large, his 3 sisters are of marriageable age, but their marriage cannot be performed due to severe fnancial constraints at his end. There are school going children in his family to whom the Petitioner wants to provide the beneft of better education, but due to his weak fnancial condition he and his family members are not in a position to do so. There are also senior citizens in the Petitioner’s family who need adequate medical support / facilities but the Petitioner and his family members are unable to provide the same, again mainly due to fnancial constraints.
15. It is in the above circumstances that the Petitioner made an Application to the Respondent No. 2 – Collector seeking sanction / approval to sell his said Land to the proposed purchaser.
16. Though it is relevant for the Collector / State Government to consider whilst deciding an application under Section 36A as to whether the tribal landholder has a genuine need for money for which he has proposed the transfer and the transfer is for a competent price and does not exploit his weak fnancial condition, in the instant case the sanction / approval sought by the Petitioner has been rejected by the Collector / State, not on the ground that the sale consideration is inadequate, or that any other tribal is willing to purchase the said Land by paying a higher sale consideration than that ofered by Respondent No. 6, but the Application of the Petitioner is rejected on the ground that the said Land has been reserved for a playground and there is no mention as to the purpose for which the said Land would be used by the intending purchaser, and further that there is no access road available to and from the said Land.
17. As regards the ground that there is no access road available, the Petitioner has in paragraph 36 of the above Writ Petition stated that in the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Ofcer dated 15th December, 2016 to the Deputy Collector, Thane, it is clearly mentioned that the road is available from the land bearing Survey No. 46/1 which is also owned by the Petitioner. This submission is not denied, disputed and/or dealt with in the Afdavit-in-Reply fled on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1- 4. In any event, it is difcult to see how want of access can really come in the way of the proposed sale. It is a risk that is taken by the purchaser, whose ofer for purchase is on an ‘as is where is’ basis.
18. As regards the ground that the said Land has been reserved for a playground, admittedly the reservation is in existence since the year 2012 / 2013. No acquisition proceedings have been commenced till date. It is therefore not certain as to when the acquisition proceedings will commence and when the Petitioner and his family members will receive compensation. The submission made on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their Afdavit–in–Reply that the Petitioner will get consideration in respect of the said Land while surrendering the same in the acquisition process for reservation purpose, therefore cannot be a valid ground for rejection of the sanction / approval sought by the Petitioner to sell the said Land. The Petitioner and his family members therefore cannot be refused sanction / approval to sell their land, despite them facing acute fnancial problems, more so since the proposed purchaser has given an undertaking that he will purchase the said Land on an ‘as is where is’ basis.
19. As regards the refusal to grant sanction / approval to the Petitioner to sell the said Land to Respondent No. 6 on the ground that the purchaser till date is not sure of the purpose for which he is willing to use the said Land, it is true that Rule 4 of the said Rules provides that the Collector may, subject to the provision of Rule 3, give sanction for the sale of land where it is being sold for any non-agricultural purpose. In other words, as stated earlier, the Collector / State therefore has to ensure that the land sold by a tribal to a non-tribal purchaser is used by such purchaser for a nonagricultural purpose. The word “Bonafde” used in Rule 4 (a)(i) in connection with such non-agricultural purpose, implies that the proposed user is genuine and does not play any fraud in this regard. The non-agricultural user proposed could be any, so long as it is permissible in law, having regard to the prevailing planning laws operating in the locality and the proposal of the transferee for such user must be real and not a subterfuge, which is all that the Collector and the State Government is required to ensure. As of now, i.e. so long as the reservation stands, the said Land can only be used for a playground; the purchaser may develop it as a playground, or allow the same to be acquired by the State for such playground. If and when the acquisition is dropped, the said Land may be used for any permissible non-agricultural purpose. The Respondent No. 6 – Purchaser herein has therefore not only given an undertaking that he will purchase the said Land on ‘as is where is’ basis, but in view of the said Land being under reservation as of now, has also given an undertaking that he would make use of the said Land and carry out such non-agricultural use as would be permitted by Respondent No. 5 – MMRDA, i.e. the Planning Authority. These undertakings given by the Respondent No. 6 – Purchaser, ensure that the purpose sought to be achieved by the Legislature through Section 36A read with Rule 4 of the said Rules, is not defeated in any manner whatsoever and the undertakings may infact form part of the permission sought by the Petitioner. In fact, not granting approval / sanction to the Petitioner to sell the said Land will not only compel the Petitioner and his family members to live in penury for all times to come, but will destroy his family, since, due to fnancial problems his sisters will remain unmarried, his children will not be able to receive education as desired by them and the senior members of his family will be deprived of the required medical attention/ treatment. The impugned Letters conveying rejection of the Application of the Petitioner to sell the said Land on the aforestated grounds, which lacks legal basis, renders the Petitioner and his family members completely helpless and unable to strive towards their economic welfare and upliftment, as also towards a bright and better future.
20. One more fact, which is pointed out by the Petitioner and which is disturbing, is that in similar cases the State Government has granted permissions to sell tribal lands to non-tribals, despite such lands being reserved for public purpose. Such orders, clearly establish discrimination on the part of the State Government, without any rational basis, whilst granting / rejecting, sanction / approval under Section 36A of the Code. Some of such Orders are annexed at Pages 103 and 107 of the Afdavit-in-Rejoinder fled by the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition. The Respondents have neither fled any response to the said Afdavit-in-Rejoinder, nor have they applied for time to fle their response to the same.
21. For the aforestated reasons, we hold that we see no reason for the Collector or the State Government to have refused permission under Section 36A in this case, either from the point of view of the transferor tribal or from the point of view of the duties of the transferee non-tribal. The above Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). It is clarifed that the undertakings of Respondent No. 6, that he is purchasing the said Land on an ‘as is where is’ basis, and if allowed by Respondent No. 5 – MMRDA (Planning Authority), will use the said Land only for nonagricultural purpose is accepted. The permission to sell the said Land in favour of Respondent No. 6 shall be granted in view of the said undertakings, and the same shall be included in the permission / sanction letter. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ( PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )