Bombay HC Dismisses 99-Year Lease Claim Over Adivasi Agricultural Land in Nashik, Upholds Revenue Order

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court found a notarised 99-year lease agreement to be a sham transaction and upheld the revenue authority’s order restoring possession to an Adivasi landowner in Trambakeshwar, Nashik.

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata, on 6 July 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by four agriculturists from Chakore village, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, who had sought to protect their possession of a 2-hectare agricultural plot under a claimed 99-year lease agreement. The Bench found the underlying agreement to be a sham, held that no consideration had in fact been paid, and further found that the attempted transfer of land belonging to an Adivasi had been made without the mandatory permission of the concerned authority — rendering it impermissible. The order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, which had gone against the petitioners, was upheld and directed to be implemented within four weeks.

The Dispute Over Ancestral Agricultural Land

The subject property is Gat No. 57, admeasuring 2 Hectares and 41 Ares, at Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik. The petitioners — Suka Mahadu Khade, Ganpat Mahadu Khade, Abhaji Mahadu Khade, and Pandharinath Mahadu Khade — claimed that the land is the ancestral property of both the petitioners and the respondents.

According to the petitioners, they had entered into an agreement dated 13 November 1997 with Respondent No. 1, Bababai Tukaram Shevre, taking the property on lease for 99 years for a total consideration of Rs. 90,000. They claimed to have been in lawful, continuous, and peaceful possession since prior to 1991, and said that Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381 stood in their names in the Record of Rights.

The respondents, according to the petitioners, had without their knowledge got the petitioners’ names deleted from the Record of Rights. When the respondents challenged Mutation Entries 259 and 381 by filing R.T.S. Appeal No. 31 of 2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed that appeal on 11 July 2023, thereby confirming the mutation entries in the petitioners’ favour.

Revenue Proceedings and the Impugned Orders

Rather than challenging the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order of 11 July 2023, the respondents instituted KUKA Case No. 2 of 2023 before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar ruled in the respondents’ favour. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, then passed an order dated 25 April 2025 in the same proceedings, also favouring the respondents.

The petitioners thereafter filed R.T.S. Appeal No. 454 of 2025 before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, which was decided against them by order dated 27 October 2025. The Circle Officer, Trambakeshwar, Nashik, issued a consequential order of possession dated 9 June 2026. The petitioners had also filed a Revision Application before the Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai on 22 December 2025, which remained pending.

The writ petition challenged both the order dated 27 October 2025 passed in R.T.S. Appeal No. 454 of 2025 and the Circle Officer’s possession order of 9 June 2026. The petitioners also sought a time-bound direction to the State to decide their pending revision application.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Kamal Khata, writing the judgment for the Division Bench, found no merit in the petition. The Bench examined the 1997 agreement and characterised it in plain terms: “The entire transaction appears to be a sham.”

The Bench noted that the agreement was merely a notarised document and assigned it no evidentiary value. On the question of consideration, the Bench recorded that the document only stated that Respondent No. 1 acknowledged having Rs. 90,000 “from time to time” — no receipt evidencing actual payment had been produced, and no consideration was shown to have in fact been paid. The document bore only a thumb impression purportedly of Respondent No. 1. Apart from bare assertions by the petitioners, there was no supporting document establishing their rights in the property.

The Bench also addressed the revenue authority’s reasoning directly. It found the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner to be well-reasoned, passed after hearing both sides and considering their contentions in full. A critical finding recorded in that order — which the Division Bench expressly endorsed — was that the land belonging to Respondent No. 1, an Adivasi, was sought to be transferred without the requisite permission from the concerned authority. The Bench held that such a transfer is impermissible and that the conclusion of the Additional Divisional Commissioner was duly justified.

The petitioners had also argued that the Respondents remained silent from 1991 until 2023 and neither objected to the 1997 agreement nor challenged the Sale Deed dated 31 January 2004 before any competent authority. The Bench did not find this argument sufficient to overcome the fundamental defects in the transaction.

Revision Application Dismissed in Exercise of Article 226 Powers

In an additional step, the Division Bench dismissed the pending Revision Application filed by the petitioners before the Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Bench invoked its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do so, stating that this was done to subserve the ends of justice and with a view to curtailing further litigation. The Registry was directed to furnish a copy of the order to the Ministry for Revenue, Mantralaya, within one week of the order being uploaded on the court’s website.

Order

The writ petition was dismissed. The order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik was upheld and directed to be implemented within four weeks of the order being uploaded on the Bombay High Court website. The Revision Application filed by the petitioners before the Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, was dismissed by the Division Bench in exercise of its Article 226 jurisdiction. No order as to costs was made.