JUDGMENT -M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---Having felt aggrieved by the order dated 25-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Collector, Amalner Division, and the order dated 3rd January, 1977 in Appeal by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court praying that the aforesaid orders be quashed and set aside. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of this case, may be stated as follows : The land at Survey No. 158 of village Dhanora, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon, admeasuring 2 acres and 5 gunthas belonged originally to respondent No. 2- Nawabkhan Jamsherkhan. Under a lease executed, probably, in 1945 (in any event, before 1-4-1957), Daulat Dhana Mali came in possession of that land as a tenant and since then, he cultivated the land till his death. On the operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Daulat Dhana Mali became a deemed purchaser of the tenanted land with effect from 1-4-1957 under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In course of time, a certificate under section 32-M about the deemed purchase was also issued to him. Daulat Dhana Mali died thereafter, leaving behind him the present petitioners, who were his legal representatives. They cultivated the land till 1976. 3. Some time in 1976, the Assistant Collector, Amalner initiated, in exercise of his powers under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, a suo-motu proceedings against the legal representatives of Daulat i.e. the present petitioners for restoration of the said land. In the inquiry before him, the petitioners had raised three contentions : First, that respondent No. 2 was not a tribal, in as much as, he was a Muslim Pathan; second, that the lease in question was made prior to 1-4-1957 and, therefore, the same was not recovered by the expression "Transfer" as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974; and third, that the respondent No. 2 held land which was in excess of ceiling limits. The learned Assistant Collector, Amalner relied mainly upon the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate in favour of the respondent No. 2 and proceeded to discuss elaborately what meaning could be assigned to a tribal in the context of the facts of the present case. He concluded that the respondent No. 2 was a tribal. The learned Assistant Collector, Amalner relied mainly upon the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate in favour of the respondent No. 2 and proceeded to discuss elaborately what meaning could be assigned to a tribal in the context of the facts of the present case. He concluded that the respondent No. 2 was a tribal. As regards the second contention, he held that the matter was governed by section 4 of the Act and that, therefore, the suo motu inquiry could be initiated and sustained. As regards the third point, he held that the question regarding the excess of ceiling limits need not deter from deciding a case under section 4 because, in the event of respondent No. 2s land being found in excess of ceiling limits, appropriate action could be taken under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961. 4. When the matter was carried in appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the M.R.T. endorsed the aforesaid views and dismissed the Appeal. 5. Having felt aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions, the petitioners have perferred this writ petition contending that section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, had no application to the facts of the case, in as much as the land was in possession of Daulat, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, since 1945 and the same did not amount to "transfer" within the meaning of the terms as defined in section 2(1)(i) of the Act, so as to attract the provisions contained in section 3 or 4. It was submitted by Mr. Choudhari, that section 4 was meant to regulate only the cases, such as the cases of deemed purchases under section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, or the cases of postponed date of deemed purchases where the landlords were persons under disability, such as, widows, minors etc. It was submitted by Mr. Choudhari, that section 4 was meant to regulate only the cases, such as the cases of deemed purchases under section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, or the cases of postponed date of deemed purchases where the landlords were persons under disability, such as, widows, minors etc. As regards the question regarding determination of the "Tribe" to which the respondent No. 2 said to be belonging, it was submitted that the reasoning given by the Assistant Collector for holding the respondent No. 2 a "Tribal" was a reasoning coming from a non-expert and that it has been held in many cases that the certificates issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrates or the findings recorded by non-expert quasi-judicial authorities should not be accepted as such unless they are got verified from the Scrutiny Committee, Directorate of Tribal Research and Training Institute, 28 Queens Garden, Pune-1. In respect of the third contention, Mr. Choudhari contended that unless and until the authorities had decided the extent of holding held by the respondent No. 2, the land would not be ordered to be restored to the respondent No. 2 if on account of such restoration of land, his holding were to exceed the ceiling limits. 6. Mr. Warad, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, submitted that the findings recorded by the authorities and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal so far, were founded on sound reasoning and that, therefore, they should be confirmed. 7. Mr. H.A. Patil, the learned A.G.P. for respondent No. 1, supported the respondent No. 2 as well as the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Amalner and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 8. As regards the determination of the Tribe, if any, to which the respondent No. 2 belonged and determination of the question, whether or not, he was a member of a Schedule Tribe, the contention of Mr. Choudhari, must hold good. The Assistant Collector had decided the matter as far back as on 25-10-1976 and the Tribunal had decided it as far back as on 3rd January, 1977. At that time, the Government did not have any machinery for the verification of Tribunal claims of the persons claiming to be tribals. Choudhari, must hold good. The Assistant Collector had decided the matter as far back as on 25-10-1976 and the Tribunal had decided it as far back as on 3rd January, 1977. At that time, the Government did not have any machinery for the verification of Tribunal claims of the persons claiming to be tribals. This Court as well as the Supreme Court, were required to deal with such matters points in a number of cases, as a result of which, the Scrutiny Committee has been appointed under the Directorate of Tribunal Research and Training Institute, Pune-1. That Committee consists of the experts who are well-acquainted with the subject. The aforesaid Committee is considered, presently, as the competent authority to verify the tribal claims, even though the Taluka Executive Magistrates and other authorities have issued certificates earlier in that context. The certificates so issued by the other authorities are since required to be verified by the aforesaid Committee before a conclusion could be arrived at as to whether or not, a person was a tribal. We cannot find fault with the efforts made by the Assistant Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in determining, whether or not, the respondent No. 2 belonged to any Scheduled Tribe. Indeed, the judgment delivered by the Assistant Collector exhibits the efforts put in by him to arrive at his own conclusion. But, in the circumstances discussed above, we cannot accept the aforesaid finding as conclusive unless and until the same is got vertified at the hands of the Scrutiny Committee. On that count, the impuged orders need to be quashed and set aside and directions are required to be given to the authorities concerned to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for vertification of the Tribe claim. 9. The legal point which was raised by Mr. Choudhari in respect of application of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, must, however, be decided here. In substance, Mr. Choudharis contention was that as the expression "transfer" as defined in section 2(1)(i) covered in relation to land "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," subject to sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of that clause. He submitted, therefore, that the lease made prior to 1-4-1957 which was not a transfer within the meaning of the definition contained in section 2(1)(i) was neither governed by section 3 nor section 4, because, section 3 stipulated transfers made within a stipulated period and section 4 had application to eventualities other than the alienation of the land by way of lease prior to 1-4-1957. This contention is correct in respect of section 3 but as far as the applicability of section 4 is concerned, it cannot certainly be sustained because, such an interpretation would mean misreading of the provision of the Act. The Act is intended to cover certain transfers inter vivos which were made within the period 1-4-1957 and 6-7-1974 and for that purpose section 3 has been incorporated. There could be cases of alienation of lands of tribals other than the aforesaid categories of alienation. The intention of the Act was to regulate such alienations also. True, it is that, according to the definitions contained in the Transfer of Property Act as several other provisions, lease of an agricultural land amounts to an alienation or transfer of property. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act provided several ways for termination of tenancies that were made prior to 1-4-1957. One of the modes of such termination was statutory declaration contained in section 32 of the Act, that on 1-4-1957, subject to the other provisions referred to therein, the tenant was to be deemed to have purchased the land. That meant that the lease which had come into existence prior to 1-4-1957 became in law non-existant under section 32 of the BT AL Act, subject to the exceptions made by the aforesaid proviso. Thus, on 1-4-1957 there was no lease between Daulat and respondent No. 2 that was in existence in the eyes of law because, the case did not fall within any of the exceptions stipulated by section 32 of the BT AL Act. What remained on 1-4-1957 in the hands of Daulat was a land which was deemed to have been purchased by him on account of operation of law with effect from that date. There is no reason to suppose that such a deemed purchase was not intended to be covered by section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. There is no reason to suppose that such a deemed purchase was not intended to be covered by section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The rejection of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the Assistant Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot, therefore, be said to be unjustified. 10. As regards the point urged by Mr. Choudhari, in view of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, one thing is to be borne in mind that unless and until the rights claimed by the petitioners are terminated in the eyes of law on account of the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, the question of determination of holding or the question, whether or not, the holding of respondent No. 2 was in excess of the ceiling limits, could hardly be decided. Mr. Choudhari was in a way right in contending that the tenant should not be put in possession of the land unless and until the aforesaid issues were considered by the appropriate authorities. But, that does not necessarily mean that till then the land should be continued in possession of the present petitioners. If the lands in possession of the present petitioners which are to be required to be restored to the present respondent No. 2 are found in excess of the ceiling limits, the land would vest under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 in the Government and the provisions contained in that Act would apply thereafter. 11. It is enough to direct, at this stage, that the authorities should consider the provisions contained in the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961, before putting the respondent No. 2 in possession of the land which can be ordered to be restored to the Tribal in pursuance of the provisions contained in section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. 12. In the light of these considerations, the Writ Petition must succeed, in part. The impugned orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Assistant Collector, Amalner, are quashed and set aside. 12. In the light of these considerations, the Writ Petition must succeed, in part. The impugned orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Assistant Collector, Amalner, are quashed and set aside. The matter be sent back to the Assistant Collector, Amalner, with a direction that he should refer the certificate issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate in respect of the Tribal claim of the respondent No. 2 to the Scrutiny Committee, Directorate of Tribal Research and Training Institute, 28, Queens Garden Pune- 1 When such an issue is referred to the Committee, the same shall be decided by that Committee after hearing the petitioners and respondent No. 2 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, on or before 31st December, 1994. 13. If the decision of the Scrutiny Committee becomes final in favour of the respondent No. 2 the concerned authorities shall ensure that the possession of the land does not continue with the non-tribal petitioners and the same shall not be delivered even to respondent No. 2 unless and until the matter is dealt with appropriately under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Cellings on Holdings) Act, 1961. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly. Petition succeed in part. *****