JUDGMENT:- Heard. Shri. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Thakare, learned AGP for Respondent No.1. Nobody appears for legal heirs of Respondent No.2. 2. Shri. Bhuibhar, learned counsel has raised the question that when all legal heirs of tribal transferor are not ready and willing to take back the land transferred by Respondent No.2 or to cultivate it, whether land can still be ordered to be restored to only willing legal heir of such tribal transferor. He contends that as per Scheme of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it is essential that all legal heirs must express their readiness and willingness to cultivate that land because land needs to be restored to them jointly and not jointly and severally. He has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004(2) Mh.L.J. 912 . He argues that in these circumstances, provisions of Section 5-A of the Act will not be applicable and the land must continue with the present petitioner. 3. The learned AGP has pointed out that in reported judgment, the tribal transferor was dead before the proceedings for restoration were initiated. He further states that in present matter, Respondent No.2 was very much alive till the proceedings reached this Court in Writ Petition and has expired thereafter. He further contends that one of his legal heirs who also is a tribal is ready and wil1ing to cultivate the land in person if it is restored to him and hence ingredients of Section 3 of the Act are satisfied. 4. After hearing parties, I find that in reported judgment in Pandurang Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), the proceedings were initiated in the year 1976 and original tribal transferor Kashiram had expired in the year 1969-70 and claimant Jiwan was found to be not his legal heir. Thus Tribal beneficiary was dead even before the Act came into force in 1974. It is in this back ground that this court has found that the Act itself has been enacted for restoration of certain lands to person belonging to Scheduled Tribes and the Court found that said purpose is not being achieved when tribal transferor has already expired without leaving behind any legal heir. It is in this back ground that this court has found that the Act itself has been enacted for restoration of certain lands to person belonging to Scheduled Tribes and the Court found that said purpose is not being achieved when tribal transferor has already expired without leaving behind any legal heir. It is in this situation that Court has held that initiation of proceeding itself was unwarranted and therefore void. In the facts of present case, the situation is otherwise. The tribal was very much alive during the pendency of proceedings and therefore initiation of proceedings was not bad. The order for restoration is passed in favour of original tribal and appeal against it was also determined in his life time. In fact tribal has expired four years after filing of present writ petitions. He has left behind him his legal heirs, though some of them are not ready and willing to have the land restored. It is always open to such legal heirs to relinquish their share but that does not mean that other legal heirs are not entitled to restoration. This Court is not required to consider entitlement of his legal heirs to claim restoration and entitlement of deceased tribal which already stands proved enures to their benefit or to the benefit of any one legal heir. Because of delay in adjudications, lands are being restored to original tribal through his willing heir. When restoration of lands to tribal, had he been alive cannot be questioned, effort of petitioner is without any substance. I, therefore, find that the situation at hand is entirely different and the reported judgment of his Court has no application in the facts of present case. 5. In the circumstances, no case is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 6. At this stage, Shri. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the petitioner non tribal is in possession since long, he wants to challenge the order further and therefore requests that his possession may be protected for six weeks. In the circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioner is protected for a period of six weeks from today and this order of protection shall cease to operate automatically after a period of six weeks from today. Petition dismissed.