JUDGMENT - DHABE H.W., J.: - This is a petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for sort the 'Act'). Briefly stated the facts are that one Nago Tulshiram, a Tribal, sold his field S.No. 37/1, area 3 acres to one Deorao Ganpat on 7-4-1964. The said Tribal had died and the respondent No. 3 Bainabai claims to be his successor-in-interest about which no dispute is raised by the petitioner in these proceedings. In the proceedings under section 3 of the Act, the said respondent No. 3 Bainabai had allege that the said Deorao Ganpat, to whom S.No. 47/1 was sold as stated above, gave the said field in partition effected on 20-4-1968 to his brother Marotrao Ganpat, the petitioner in this writ petition. 2. There was a second transition of sale effected by the aforesaid Tribal Nago Tulshiram, who sold S.No. 73/1, area 1.1 acres, on 7-2-1958 to Govind Narayan, who was a non-Tribal. Govind Narayan gifted the said field to his sister-in-law Manjulabai on 17-3-1958 and Manjulabai thereafter sold it to the petitioner Marotrao Govind on 26-3-1969. 3. After this Act came into force, proceedings were initiated under section 3 of the Act against the petitioner non-Tribal for restoration of possession of the aforesaid fields S. Nos. 47/1 and 73/1 from him to the respondent No. 3 Bainabai, who claimed to be the successor-in-interest of the said Nago Tulshiram. The Sub-Divisional Officer (for short S.D.O.) by his order dated 31-7-1976, held that the respondent No. 3 is not entitled to restoration of land as per section 3 of the Act. The respondent No. 3, therefore, preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Maharahstra Revenue Tribunal (for short M.R.T) by its order dated 24-12-1976. The principal question canvassed before me is that the petitioner, from whom the suit fields are sought to be restored to the respondent No. 3 Tribal, is not a “non-Tribal-transferee” within the meaning of the said expression under section 3 of the Act. 4. It would be useful at this stage to notice some of the definitions given in section 2(1) of the Act. The principle definition for the purpose of section 3 of the Act is the definition of the word 'transfer' given in section 2(1)(i). 4. It would be useful at this stage to notice some of the definitions given in section 2(1) of the Act. The principle definition for the purpose of section 3 of the Act is the definition of the word 'transfer' given in section 2(1)(i). The word 'transfer' in relation to land means the transfer of land belonging to a Tribal made in favour of a non-tribal during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1957 and ending on the 6th day of July, 1974....; and the expressions 'Tribal-transferor' and 'non-transferee' are to be construed accordingly. It is clear from the above definition of the word “transfer” that it contemplates a transfer of the land by the Tribal to the non-Tribal during the period referred to therein. The last part of the definition shows that the Tribal-transferor is a person, who transfers his land during the period prescribed in the definition of the word 'transfer' and the 'non-Tribal-transferee' is a person who purchases the said land of the Tribal-transfer during the period prescribed in the said definition. 5. It would be clear from section 3 of the Act that it is the Tribal-transferor as contemplated by the definition of the word 'transfer' who is entitled thereunder to restoration of his land from the non-Tribal-transferee. The further contingency contemplated by the Act, therefore, is that the land transferred by the said Tribal-transferor may not be in the hands of the original non-tribal-transferee as contemplated by the definition of the word 'transfer' under the Act but may have been further transferred by him or may have been inherited from him by his heirs. From this point of view, the definition of the expression 'successor-in-interest' given in section 2(1)(h) of the Act and the definition of the expression 'non-Tribal-transferee' given in section 2(1)(i) of the Act becomes relevant. The 'successor-in-interest' is defined to mean a person who acquires interest in land by testamentary disposition or devolution on death. A 'non-Tribal-transferee' by its definition in section 2(1)(i) includes his successor-in-interest; and if the non-Tribal-Transferee or his successor has, on or after the 15th day of March, 1971, transferred land in favour of any person, whether a Tribal or a non-Tribal, includes also such person. 6. A 'non-Tribal-transferee' by its definition in section 2(1)(i) includes his successor-in-interest; and if the non-Tribal-Transferee or his successor has, on or after the 15th day of March, 1971, transferred land in favour of any person, whether a Tribal or a non-Tribal, includes also such person. 6. The above definition of the expression “non-tribal-transferee” given in section 2(1)(i) being inclusive, extends the meaning of the word 'non-Tribal-Transferee' which the expression as per the definition of the word 'transfer' given in section 2(1)(i) for the purpose of this Act means a person in whose favour the land of the Tribal-transferor transferred during the period prescribed in the said definition. It is material to note that in the definition of the expression “non-tribal-transferee” given in section 2(1) of the Act, a person to whom the land of the Tribal-transferor is transferred by the non-Tribal-transferee or his successor after 15-3-1971 is alone included which in other words means that if there is any such transfer before 15-3-1971, such a transferee from the non-tribal-transferee or his successor is not included within the said definition. The effect would be that if the non-Tribal-transferee, as contemplated by section 2(1)(i), who purchases the land of the Tribal-transferor during the period prescribed therein, or his successor transfers the said land to any other person whether a tribal or non-Tribal before 15-3-1971, the said transferee of the land will not be liable to restore the same to the tribal-transferor under section 3 of the Act. 7. It is in the context of the above definitions and in particular the definition of the expression “non-tribal-transferee”, given in section 2(1)(i) of the Act that the provisions of section 3 of the Act need to be examined. The pre-requisite for restoration of land to the tribal-transferor under section 3(1) of the Act is that the land of the Tribal-transferor must be held by a non-Tribal-Transferee. It means that the land of the tribal-transferor is either in possession of the original non-Tribal-transferor, who purchase the land from him during the period prescribed in the definition of the word 'transfer' under the Act or his successor-in-interest or a subsequent transferee from him or his successor-in-interest who purchases the said land after 15-3-1971. It is from such non-tribal-transferee in whose possession the land of the Tribal-transferor is that the Tribal transferor is entitled to restoration of his land. It is from such non-tribal-transferee in whose possession the land of the Tribal-transferor is that the Tribal transferor is entitled to restoration of his land. It is in the light of the aforesaid view taken by me about the requirements of section 3 of the Act that the facts in the instant petition need to be examined. 8. As regards field S.No. 45/1, it is not in dispute that the said field belonging to Tribal Nago Tulshiram was purchased by Deorao within the period contemplated by the definition of the word “non-tribal-transferee” within the meaning of the said definition. However, Deorao Ganpat gave this survey number in partition to his brother Marotrao Ganpat, the petitioner non-Tribal, in the instant case. The question which has to be examined is whether the petitioner Marotrao Ganpat is a “non-Tribal-Transferee” within the meaning of this Act because, it is from him that the land a aforesaid is sought to be restored to the respondent No. 3 Tribal. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that there was a partition in which he received this land which fact is supported by an entry in the record of rights placed on record in these proceedings. It is not necessary, in the instant petition to examine the question whether the true character of giving the above survey number to Marotrao was that of a partition or was that of a transfer because no such dispute is raised by the respondent No. 3. Tribal in this petition. Proceeding further on the footing that there was a partition, it has to be held that it is not a transfer as the said expression is normally understood in law. The other question, therefore, that has to be examined is whether the petitioner Marotrao Ganpat can be said to be a successor-in-interest of the said Deorao Ganpatrao. The definition of the said expression in section 2(1)(h) of the Act is very clear. It is applicable to a person who has acquired interest in land by testamentary disposition or devolution on death. It cannot, therefore, include a person who receives the land in partition. 10. The definition of the said expression in section 2(1)(h) of the Act is very clear. It is applicable to a person who has acquired interest in land by testamentary disposition or devolution on death. It cannot, therefore, include a person who receives the land in partition. 10. The finding arrived at by the Sub-Divisional Officer is, therefore, correct that the petitioner Marotrao Ganpat is not a 'non-Tribal-Transferee” within the meaning of said expression under the act so far as the field S.No. 47/1 is concerned and the said land held by him, therefore, cannot be restored to the respondent No. 3 Tribal. The finding in this regard by the Appellate Court is curious. The learned Appellate Court held that the petitioner Marotrao so far as S.No. 47/1 is concerned, is neither the successor-in-interest nor a second transferee. However, it has held that he is as if the first transferee, who is a non-Tribal. The said finding in the light of the above facts in the instant case and in the light of the definitions given in section 2(1) and 2(1)(i) of the Act is clearly erroneous and cannot be upheld. 11. As regards field S.No. 73/1, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that the petitioner Marotrao, who purchased the said field on 26-3-1969 from Manjulabai, the sister-in-law of the original non-tribal Govind Narayan, who purchased it from Tribal Nagorao Tulshiram on 1-2-1958, is not successor-in-interest of the original non-tribal. The learned M.R.T. in appeal held that the provisions of section 2(1)(i) do not apply in this case. It, however, held that the allege transfer of the land from Govind to Manjulabai and then to Marotrao would come within the mischief of section 3. In my view, the finding of the learned M.R.T. this regard is liable to be set aside. Although the reasoning of the learned S.D.O. cannot be upheld, his ultimate finding is upheld that the respondent No. 3 is not entitled to restoration of land from the petitioner. 12. Examining the facts in regard to field Survey No. 73/1 the original non -Tribal-Transferee as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the Act would be Govind Narayan who purchased the said field from the Tribal Nago Tulshiram on 7.2 .1958. After he purchased the said field during the period in question, he gifted it to his sister-in-law on 17-3-1958. 12. Examining the facts in regard to field Survey No. 73/1 the original non -Tribal-Transferee as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the Act would be Govind Narayan who purchased the said field from the Tribal Nago Tulshiram on 7.2 .1958. After he purchased the said field during the period in question, he gifted it to his sister-in-law on 17-3-1958. Now, Govind Narayan is a non-Tribal transferee and the said Manjulabai cannot be his successor-in-interest within the meaning of the definition of the said expression given in section 2(1)(h) of the Act. It is true that since the gift is a transfer, she is a transferee but the question is whether the said transfer is covered by definition of the expression “non-Tribal-Transferee” in section 2(1)(i) of the Act. As seen earlier, the said definition is applicable to the transferee to whom the land is transferred on or after 15-3-1971. Admittedly, in the instant case gift is prior to 15-3-1971 and as such, Manjulabai cannot be a non-Tribal transferee within the meaning of section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Next is the transfer by the said Manjulabai by way of sale of the aforesaid field S.No. 73/1 to petitioner Marotrao on 26-3-1969. The said petitioner Marotrao can also not be a “non-Tribal-Transferee” within the meaning of section 2(1)(i) of the Act because the land is purchased by him prior to 15-3-1971 and that too not from the original non-Tribal-Transferee” Govind Narayan or his successor-in-interest but from a transferee who is herself not a non-Tribal-Transferee as stated above. It is thus clear that the suit field i.e. field S.No. 73/1 in possession of the petitioner Marotrao who is not a “non-Tribal-transferee” as contemplated by the Act cannot be restored to the respondent No. 3 Tribal. The impugned order of the learned M.R.T. is, therefore, liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is set aside. Rule made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----