Bombay High Court Rejects 99-Year Lease Claim Over Adivasi Land, Says Notarized Agreement and Cash Payment Plea Had No Evidentiary Value
Facts
The petitioners, Suka Mahadu Khade and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 27 October 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, and the possession order dated 9 June 2026 issued by the Circle Officer, Trambakeshwar, Nashik.
The dispute concerned Gat No. 57, admeasuring 2 hectares and 41 ares, situated at Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik.
The petitioners claimed that the property was ancestral property of both the petitioners and the private respondents. They asserted that they had entered into an agreement dated 13 November 1997 with Respondent No. 1, taking the property on lease for 99 years for a consideration of ₹90,000.
They further alleged that despite receipt of the entire consideration, the respondents got the petitioners’ names deleted from the record of rights. The petitioners also relied on earlier mutation entries and claimed that they had been in lawful, continuous and peaceful possession since before 1991.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners had established any legal right in the subject property on the basis of the alleged 99-year lease agreement.
- Whether the notarized agreement dated 13 November 1997 had evidentiary value sufficient to protect the petitioners’ claim.
- Whether the impugned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner required interference under Article 226.
- Whether the High Court should direct the Revenue Minister to decide the petitioners’ pending revision application in a time-bound manner.
- Whether transfer of land belonging to an Adivasi person without requisite permission could be legally sustained.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the subject land was ancestral property and that they had entered into a 99-year lease agreement with Respondent No. 1 in 1997.
They submitted that the entire consideration of ₹90,000 had been paid and that the agreement was executed before witnesses.
They further contended that their names were earlier reflected in the record of rights through Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381, and that the respondents’ challenge to those entries had been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11 July 2023.
The petitioners also argued that they had been in continuous possession of the property since before 1991 and that the respondents had not challenged the 1997 agreement or the alleged sale deed dated 31 January 2004 for several years.
On this basis, they sought stay of the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order and the possession order issued by the Circle Officer.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the writ petition.
The respondents’ case, as accepted by the authorities and the High Court, was that the petitioners had no legally sustainable right in the subject property.
It was also contended that the land belonged to Respondent No. 1, who was an Adivasi, and that any transfer of such land without permission from the competent authority was impermissible.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the matter under Article 226 jurisdiction and examined whether the impugned revenue orders suffered from any illegality or perversity requiring interference.
The Court found that the petitioners’ claim was founded on a notarized agreement, not a registered legal instrument capable of creating the kind of right asserted by them.
The Court also emphasized that transfer of land belonging to an Adivasi person without requisite permission from the concerned authority is legally impermissible.
The Court therefore treated the petitioners’ alleged transaction as legally unsustainable and found no basis to protect their possession or revenue entries.
Precedent Analysis
No specific precedent was discussed in the judgment.
The decision turned on the factual assessment of the petitioners’ documents, the nature of the alleged transaction, the validity of the revenue authorities’ orders, and the legal bar against unauthorized transfer of Adivasi land.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ case.
It observed that the entire transaction appeared to be a sham. The alleged agreement relied upon by the petitioners was merely a notarized document and had no sufficient evidentiary value.
The Court also rejected the plea that ₹90,000 had been paid in cash. The document only stated that Respondent No. 1 had received the amount “from time to time,” but no receipt or supporting proof of payment was produced.
The Court further noted that the document bore a thumb impression purportedly of Respondent No. 1, but apart from bald assertions, there was no material to substantiate the petitioners’ claimed rights in the property.
The Court held that the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order was well reasoned, passed after hearing both sides, and did not warrant interference.
Most importantly, the Court found that the land belonged to Respondent No. 1, an Adivasi, and was sought to be transferred without requisite permission from the competent authority. The Court held that such transfer was impermissible.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court refused to interfere with the order dated 27 October 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, and upheld the order.
The Court also refused to direct the Revenue Minister to decide the petitioners’ pending revision application. Instead, to prevent further litigation, the Court itself dismissed the revision application pending before the Revenue Minister.
The Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order was directed to be implemented within four weeks from the date of uploading of the High Court’s order.
Case Details
Case: Suka Mahadu Khade & Ors. v. Bababai Tukaram Shevre & Ors.
Court: Bombay High Court
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7542 of 2026
Judge: Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata
Date: 6 July 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; pending revision before Revenue Minister also dismissed; Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order upheld and directed to be implemented within four weeks.
