Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present petition is filed for the following reliefs:

                   (1) Quash and set aside the order dated 25/08/1989 said to be passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tribal Appeal No. 71/B-109/1989 at Annexure P1. existence of such an order is not even confirmed by the office of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

                   (2) Quash and set aside the mutation entry no. 383 dt. 20/08/1990 taken in the name of Non-tribal, At Annexure P7, and the subsequent based on mutation entry no. 383 dt. 20/08/1990.

                   (3) Further pleased to restore the mutation entry No. 84 dated 03/01/1985 by mutating the names of petitioners the successors deceased Lahuji Junghare.

3. The facts, as can be seen from the memo of petition, are as under:

                   a) The petitioners herein are from tribal community belonging to the ‘Pradhan’ caste in Gadchiroli Tehasil of old Chanda District, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe as per Schedule Part IV, Entry No. 27 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. The petitioners are sons of Harishchandra Junghare and grandsons of one Lahu S/o Arjun Junghare, while petitioner No. 3 is the mother of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 are the subsequent purchasers of the land in question from the Non-Tribal late Shrawan Burande, while respondent Nos. 12 to 14 are the legal heirs of the said late Shrawan Burande. The grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Lahu S/o Arjun Junghare, acquired land bearing Khasra No. 43/3 (new number 107) and measuring 1.36 HR at Mouza Navegaon. The said land, as per the revenue records, was acquired under Class-2 Bhumidhari occupancy.

                   b) After the death of the said Lahu Junghare, which occurred on 25/10/1991, his son Harishchandra, being the father of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and his legal heir, continued the cultivation of the land. Eventually, Harishchandra also expired on 04.12.2012. After the death of the said Harishchandra, the petitioners continued to cultivate the land, which they are doing till date. However, in the year 2023, the petitioners noticed certain activities of leveling the land with two tractors over the said piece of land. On being confronted, the said persons replied that the land is purchased by one Advocate Chalakh, who has engaged them to level the land. On being obstructed, the said tractors were driven out by the petitioners.

                   c) The petitioners thereafter began search for documents, and then it was seen that certain mutation extracts were found revealing that, as per the order of the Tahsildar, Gadchiroli, passed on 23.10.78 in Revenue Case No. 64/418 LND-31/7/1974-75, the land was restored and, on 29.12.1978, possession was handed over to their grandfather Lahuji, i.e., the tribal, from the non-tribal Shrawan Burande. Accordingly, Mutation Entry No. 84 was taken on 08.12.1984, which was certified on 03.01.1985. It was also thereafter found that, as per Mutation Entry No. 383 dated 20.08.1990, which referred to the letter of the Tahsildar dated 31.07.1990, a mutation entry was taken stating that “as per result of Case No. 64/418/LND-31/76-77, the land of the tribal Lahuji bearing Survey No. 107, admeasuring 1.36 HR, is given in favour of the non-tribal Shrawan Burande by the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal passed on 25.08.1989.” It was also seen that within two months of the mutation entry as stated supra, i.e., Mutation Entry No. 383 dated 20.08.1990, the said non-tribal, i.e., Shrawan Burande, sold out a piece of land admeasuring 0.68 HR to Sau. Suman Tukaram Chalak vide sale deed dated 09.10.1990. Accordingly, a mutation entry was taken vide Mutation Entry No. 431 dated 20.11.1990.

                   d) Ten years thereafter, the remaining portion of the land of Survey No. 107 was sold by Shrawan Burande to respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7 jointly vide sale deed dated 25.09.2000, who happened to be near relatives of the said Advocate Tukaram Chalakh. Accordingly, a mutation entry was taken vide Mutation Entry No. 1384 dated 18.10.2000.

                   e) It was also found by the petitioners herein that their father had made a complaint on 18.10.2011 to the Collector, Gadchiroli, for making an enquiry into the fraudulent Mutation Entry No. 383 dated 20.08.1990 and the subsequent sale deeds with respect to the said piece of land. It was also found that, on the directions of the Collector, the Tahsildar made an enquiry (a farce of an enquiry, as alleged in the petition) and submitted his report on 07.07.2012 to the Collector. In the said report, the Tahsildar recommended that there is no fraud as alleged and the enquiry needed to be dropped. Due to financial constraints, the father of the petitioners could not pursue the matter further.

                   f) In the backdrop of these facts, the petitioners submitted an application on 16.10.2023 to the Collector, again praying for an enquiry into the matter and to restore Mutation Entry No. 84 dated 03.01.1975 by recording their names as legal heirs of the tribal, i.e., Lahuji Junghare. Taking cognizance of this application, the Deputy Collector, vide letter dated 26.10.2023, directed an enquiry into the matter. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 filed another application on 18.03.2024 to the office of the Tahsildar, Gadchiroli, for restoration of the mutation entry in the name of the present petitioner. Accordingly, Case No. LND-31/1/2023-24, Mouza Navegaon, Talathi Saza No. 50, Murkhada, was registered before the Tahsildar, Gadchiroli. The Tahsildar issued notices to the parties.

                   g) In the meanwhile the petitioners also lodged a report on 13.12.2023 against the non-tribals, and stating that Entry No. 383 is fraudulently taken. However, no cognizance was taken by the Police Station, Gadchiroli.

                   h) The petitioners further state that on 28.03.2024, the non-applicants, i.e., the respondents herein, appeared before the Tahsildar through their Advocate, Shri T. S. Chalakh, and the matter proceeded thereafter. On 15.05.2024, the respondents submitted a preliminary objection and prayed for dismissal of the proceedings. In the meanwhile, the petitioners produced a letter dated 02.04.2024 issued by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming that there is no such case in the record of the said Tribunal in respect of the order which is shown in the disputed mutation entry. The arguments of the parties were heard on 20.05.2024. However, on that day also, a copy of the purported order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not produced before the Tahsildar.

                   i) The petition further states that it was only on 11.06.2024 that the respondents produced a purported order dated 25.08.1989 which claimed to be passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is specifically stated in the petition that it was only on 11.06.2024 that the petitioners became aware of such order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 25.08.1989.

                   j) It is further stated in the petition that the Tahsildar, on 21.06.2024, recorded in his order sheet that it would be appropriate to verify the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal from the said office. Accordingly, the Tahsildar sent a letter on 01.07.2024 to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with a request to verify the authenticity of the said order placed by the respondents before the Tahsildar. It is further averred in the petition that, however, and surprisingly, for the reasons best known to the Tahsildar, he addressed another letter on 06.08.2024 to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal stating that the earlier letter was sent inadvertently and therefore the said letter dated 01.07.2024 stands withdrawn. It is thus submitted that the Tahsildar did not take the enquiry to its logical end without recording any reasons. It is in these facts that the petitioners herein have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for reliefs as stated supra.

4. The contesting respondents, i.e., respondent Nos. 5 to 11, have filed an affidavit-in-reply and refuted the contentions advanced by the petitioners. By way of preliminary objection, it is submitted that the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation since the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal passed on 25.08.1989 is sought to be challenged in the year 2025.

5. As far as the merits of the matter are concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is in fact in existence and therefore, there is no question of doubting the veracity of the said order. It is further submitted that the entire exercise which ensued on the basis of the said order regarding mutation and other allied entries is perfectly legal and valid. They have also filed on record a copy of the order sheet of the said matter which shows that on 23.08.1989, the grandfather of the petitioners was in fact present, a fact which can be seen from his signature.

6. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have also filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations made in the petition. They also submit that the grandfather of the petitioner was in fact present before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. As far as the proceeding before the Tahsildar is concerned, it is submitted that no fault can be found with the said exercise of discretion by the Tahsildar since the said authority prima facie discovered that there is no fraud involved.

7. However, interestingly enough, respondent No. 2, i.e., the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, has filed an affidavit through its Deputy Registrar, namely, Gajanan s/o Hiralal Meshram, in which, in paragraphs 2 and 3, it is recorded as under:

                   “2. It is submitted that a thorough and diligent search was conducted in the record room/archives section as well as other relevant registers and available records of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, to trace the record pertaining to Tribal Appeal No.71/B-1099/1989, purportedly decided on 25.08.1989. It is humbly submitted that the Section Officer has submitted a letter on 10.10.2025 stating the record pertaining to Tribal Appeal No. 71/B-109/1989 decided on 25.08.1989, the said case file could not be traced in the record room/archives section of this Tribunal presently in the search the case is not traced out. A copy of letter dated 10.10.2025 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R-1 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

                   3. It is further submitted that a search was also undertaken to ascertain whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had held any camp sitting at Gadchiroli during the relevant period. However, no contemporaneous record relating to such camp proceedings could be traced from the available records.”

8. The said affidavit is filed in pursuance of order of this Court dated 25.09.2025, as corrected vide order dated 01.10.2025. In addition to this, there is also a letter by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 10.10.2025 reiterating the facts stated in the affidavit as mentioned supra.

9. I have heard Mr. Vijay N. Morande, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J.Y. Ghurde, learned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State and Mr. Omkar Deshpande, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 13.

10. As can be seen from the narration of facts made hereinabove, the question which falls for consideration is whether the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on the basis of which entries are taken in fact is in existence or not.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners, by taking me through the entire narration of facts as also the supporting documents, vehemently submits that the entire exercise amounts to grabbing of land of the tribal by the non-tribal and is vitiated by fraud. He submits that it is a settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates even a very solemn act.

12. As far as the facts are concerned, he submits that a bare perusal of the disputed mutation entry in question would reveal that there is no mention regarding any proceeding number or appeal number of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, creating a suspicion over the said entry. He further submits that the father of the petitioners had made a complaint on 18.10.2011 for enquiry into the said fraudulent entry and the subsequent sale deeds, but only a farce of an enquiry was shown and the matter was not taken to its logical end. He further submits that thereafter also the petitioners tried their level best to get the copy of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 25.08.1989, which was the foundation of Mutation Entry No. 383, but could not get the same. He submits that the said order was kept as a well-guarded secret by the non-tribals and it was only in the month of June 2024 that the certified copy of the said order was placed on record. Taking support from this fact, he submits that the entire conduct of the non-tribals in collusion with the Tahsildar creates a grave suspicion regarding the exercise and more particularly the existence or otherwise of the said order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

13. He further submits that in fact, the Tahsildar initiated an enquiry and requested the Tribunal for the record vide order dated 01.07.2024, but surprisingly enough, and for reasons best known to him, he withdrew the said letter on 06.08.2024. He submits that all these facts point out a grave suspicion and the entire exercise seems to be doubtful in nature.

14. He also draws my attention to an additional affidavit filed by the petitioners on 04.09.2026. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the petitioners have obtained certified extracts of the inward and outward registers of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal for the period from 28.04.2012 till 04.05.2012, as also the outward registers for the period from 06.09.2012 to 21.09.2012. He submits that these periods pertain to the time when the respondents herein allegedly applied for getting a certified copy of the so-called order, which is shown to be applied for on 30th of April and the copy is shown to be ready on 17.08.2012, while it is issued on 17.09.2012. He submits that there is no corresponding entry in the inward register where the application for the certified copy is received, neither is there any outward entry evidencing delivery of the said certified copy. It is, therefore, his submission that the entire exercise seems to be tainted by fraud and therefore, the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 25.08.1989 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

15. As far as the merits of the order are concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order is not sustainable, since in the said order the Tribunal holds that the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer is without jurisdiction. He submits that having recorded such a finding, the Revenue Tribunal ought to have remanded the said matter, but instead of doing the same, it proceeds to decide the same on merits. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that even on merits, the order is not sustainable in law. He further submits that as far as the aspect regarding the community of “Pradhan” to which the petitioners belong is concerned, it is a matter of record that the said community was recognized as a Scheduled Tribe as per Schedule Part IV, Entry No. 27 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and therefore, the finding recorded by the Revenue Tribunal in that regard, apart from being factually incorrect, is unsustainable in law. In nutshell, it is his submission that apart from the fact that there is a serious doubt regarding the very existence of the order of the Revenue Tribunal, even on merits, the order is unsustainable in law. For all these reasons, he submits that the said order is liable to be quashed and set aside.

16. Mr. Omkar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 to 13, by taking me through the counter affidavit filed by the said respondents, submits that the petition is meritless and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation also. He takes me through the annexures of the reply filed by the said respondents and states that the cause list of the Revenue Tribunal shows that there was a case bearing Case No. 71/B-109/1989 on the board of the Revenue Tribunal and the presence of the grandfather of the petitioners is also marked, which is not disputed. He also points me out the Panchanama and the possession receipts where the name of the grandfather of the petitioners appears. He submits that there is nothing to doubt the very existence of the order of the Revenue Tribunal as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

17. The learned AGP appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also supports the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 13. As far as the merits of the order are concerned, he submits that the authorities, i.e., the Tahsildar, have acted upon the order of the Revenue Tribunal and there is nothing unreasonable found in the said exercise. However, as far as respondent No. 2, i.e., the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, is concerned, the learned AGP submits that the affidavit is already filed on record regarding the fact that such a record was not found in the record room of the Tribunal.

18. I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsels for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, gone through the record. The entire edifice of the case revolves around the existence or non-existence of an order appended at page 31. The said order seems to be passed by Shri N. S. Oley (Patil), Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur Camp at Gadchiroli. The said order, which is shown to be passed on 25.08.1989, is shown to be passed in Tribal Appeal No. 71/B-109/1989 against the order dated 26.12.1977 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli, in Revenue Case No. 418/LND-31/76-77 of Mauza Navegaon. The said appeal was filed by one Shrawan Burhade, who is the predecessor in title of Respondents Nos. 12 to 14, against the State of Maharashtra and one Lahu s/o Arjun Junghare, who happens to be the grandfather of the present petitioners. The said order records that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli, passed an order on 26.12.1977 in favour of respondent No. 2 therein and ordered restoration of the said field to respondent No. 2. That order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged before the Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974.

19. Firstly, coming to the merits of the order, the said order records a finding that as far as the said Act is concerned, the powers of the Collector are delegated to the Additional Collector. However, since the order is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadchiroli, on the basis of an enquiry conducted by the Additional Collector, the same is without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the order of this Court in L.P.A. No. 152/84 decided on 27.06.1984 to record such a finding. However, in my considered opinion, as has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the Revenue Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the order is without jurisdiction, the logical corollary would have been to remand the matter to an authority which, according to the Tribunal, will have jurisdiction to conduct the said exercise.

20. The next finding is regarding the inclusion of the “Pradhan” community in the list of Scheduled Tribes. In this regard, the Revenue Tribunal has recorded a finding that the said community was not treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Gadchiroli Tahsil of the old Chanda District in the Vidarbha region on the date of transfer, i.e., 18.06.1996. It therefore records a finding that there was no prohibition against transfer by respondent No. 2 to the present appellant because the said tribe was not recognized as such. However, the said finding is factually incorrect since, as has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the “Pradhan” community is recorded as a tribe as per Schedule Part No. IV, Entry No. 27 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Thus, the finding, apart from being illegal, is factually incorrect. Thus, on this basis, the Tribunal has proceeded to allow the appeal of the predecessor in title of respondent Nos. 12 to 14.

21. As far as the existence or non-existence of the said order is concerned, as I have already stated, the Deputy Registrar of the Revenue Tribunal has categorically and on affidavit stated that such a record of the Tribal Appeal mentioned supra is not traced in the record room. He has further stated that even though a search was undertaken as to whether the said Tribunal had held any camp at Gadchiroli during the relevant period, no record is available. This creates at least a doubt prima facie regarding the entire existence of the order of the Revenue Tribunal.

22. The said affidavit has not been countered by respondent Nos. 5 to 13 by filing any counter affidavit. Furthermore, in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners, they have also stated that there is no record in the Tribunal regarding the receipt of the application for a certified copy of the said order, as also the delivery of the certified copy on the dates as mentioned in the certified copy of the purported order of the Revenue Tribunal. An affidavit of the responsible officer of the Revenue Tribunal cannot be doubted. In addition to that, there are two letters of the said Tribunal dated 02.04.2024 and 10.10.2025 evidencing the said fact in the totality of the circumstances. I am of the considered opinion that the order of the Revenue Tribunal, which is the basis for taking mutation entries, does not exist at all. In addition to this, as already stated above, even if the order is presumed to be in existence, the same is unsustainable on merits. As far as limitation is concerned, as I have already stated supra, the petitioners have stated in the petition, with supporting documents on record, to show that they were not aware of the said order being passed. It is stated in the petition, to which there is no rebuttal, that it was only on 11.06.2024 that the purported order of the Revenue Tribunal came to light when it was filed by the respondents before the Tahsildar.

23. It is thus clear that on the basis of a non-existent order of the MRT, land of a tribal has been transferred to a non-tribal and the same is subsequently sold to third parties. In other words, fraud has been played on the entire system so as to put the tribal in a lurch. It is a settled principle of law that fraud vitiates every solemn act. I draw support from the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2025 INSC 884, and other connected matters, reaffirming the proposition of fraud. Paragraph 61 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

                   61. In decisions abound, the Courts have consistently nullified orders obtained through fraudulent means. Key excerpts from some of these decisions read thus:

                   a. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh⁴⁷, this Court reiterated that fraud unravels everything:

                   3. “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that “no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything” (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 : (1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)]).

                   b. In Shrisht Dhawan (Smt) v. Shaw Bros.⁴⁸, it was held:

                   20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, ‘wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares’. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster’s Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black’s Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.......

                   c. In A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P.⁴⁹, this Court held:

                   21. Now, it is well-settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.”

                   22. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the court, tribunal or authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment, decree or order—by the first court or by the final court—has to be treated as nullity by every court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.

                   23. ***

                   24. In Duchess of Kingston, Smith’s Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p. 644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was “mistaken”, it might be shown that it was “misled”. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment.

                   25. It has been said : fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent).

                   d. The judgment by Denning, L.J. in Lazarus Estates Ltd. (supra), which has since been quoted with approval by this Court in a catena of decisions including Nidhi Kaim (supra), asserted intolerance for fraud in legal proceedings in the following words:

                   No court ... will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. [...] Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved, it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever....

                   We are also mindful of the legal principle that if a fact could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, its non-disclosure does not constitute suppressio veri or suggestio falsi. Profitable reference may be made to the decision in Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University⁵⁰ where this Court observed that “where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved”. It would neither be a case of suggestio falsi nor suppressio veri.

24. Taking overall view of the matter, I have reason to believe that such an order does not exist, more particularly when there is the affidavit of the Revenue Tribunal as also the letter dated 07.06.2024, which is appended at page 38 of the petition, and the letter dated 10.10.2025, which is appended at page 222 of the petition. In the totality of the circumstances, the following order is passed:

                   ORDER

                   i) The order dated 25.08.1989, which is said to be passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tribal Appeal No. 71/B-109/1989, is quashed and set aside.

                   ii) Accordingly, the Mutation Entry No. 383 dated 20.08.1990 and all the subsequent entries taken on the basis of said order are also quashed and set aside.

                   iv) The Mutation Entry No. 84 dated 03.01.1985, by which the names of the petitioners were mutated as successors of the Tribal Lahuji Junghare, is restored.

                   v) Looking to the grave facts of the matter, I hereby direct that a copy of the said judgment be placed before the Collector, Gadchiroli, and the Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli. Both these authorities are directed to look into the matter, conduct an enquiry, and take appropriate action in accordance with law against the persons who are found guilty.

25. With these directions, the petition is allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.