The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the deletion of the petitioners’ names from land records, ruling that a notarized agreement holds no evidentiary value for a 99-year lease, and that transferring Adivasi-owned land without statutory permission is legally impermissible. A division bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata upheld the decision of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, and exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to additionally dismiss a pending revision application to prevent prolonged litigation.
Background of the Case
The petitioners—Suka Mahadu Khade, Ganpat Mahadu Khade, Abhaji Mahadu Khade, and Pandharinath Mahadu Khade—approached the High Court seeking to quash an order dated October 27, 2025, passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, in R.T.S. Appeal No. 454 of 2025. They also challenged a possession order dated June 9, 2026, issued by the Circle Officer, Trambakeshwar, Nashik, and sought directions for the speedy disposal of an R.T.S. Revision Application pending before the Minister for Revenue.
The dispute involves agricultural land measuring 2 Hectares and 41 Ares, situated at Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, identified as Gat No. 57. The petitioners contended that the property was ancestral land belonging to both them and the respondents.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioners argued that they had entered into an agreement on November 13, 1997, with Bababai Tukaram Shevre (Respondent No. 1) to lease the property for a period of 99 years for a total consideration of Rs. 90,000. They claimed to have been in lawful, continuous, and peaceful possession of the property since before 1991. According to the petitioners, despite receiving the full consideration, the respondents unilaterally and without their knowledge deleted their names from the Record of Rights.
The petitioners highlighted that an earlier challenge by the respondents to Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381 had been dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on July 11, 2023. They contended that instead of challenging that dismissal, the respondents initiated KUKA Case No. 2 of 2023 before the Tahsildar. The subsequent orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Additional Divisional Commissioner in favor of the respondents severely prejudiced their rights, leading them to seek a stay on the implementation of these orders.
Ms. Nisha Mehra, Additional Government Pleader (AGP) appearing for the Respondent-State, opposed the writ petition.
The Court’s Analysis
Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found no merit in the petition. Commenting on the validity of the transactions, the bench observed:
“The entire transaction appears to be a sham.”
Analyzing the purported 99-year lease agreement, the Court remarked:
“The Agreement on the record is merely a notarized document having no evidentiary value.”
The court found the petitioners’ claim of paying Rs. 90,000 in cash to be unsubstantiated, noting that the document only recorded that Respondent No. 1 acknowledged receiving the sum “from time to time.” No receipts were produced, and no actual consideration was shown to have been paid. Furthermore, the document bore only a thumb impression purportedly belonging to Respondent No. 1, with no other supporting documents to substantiate the petitioners’ rights in the property.
Defending the validity of the appellate administrative order, the court observed:
“The Order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik is well reasoned and warrants no interference.”
The bench emphasized the protected legal status of the land, noting that the Additional Divisional Commissioner “rightly records that the land belonging to Respondent No. 1 an Adivasi was sought to be transferred without requisite permission from the concerned authority; that is impermissible.”
Decision of the Court
Holding that the conclusion arrived at by the Additional Divisional Commissioner was fully justified, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Additionally, to subserve the ends of justice and curtail further litigation, the bench exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to dismiss the Revision Application filed by the petitioners before the Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
The Court directed its Registry to furnish a copy of the order to the Ministry for Revenue within a week of uploading. It upheld the impugned order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, directing its implementation within four weeks. No order was made as to costs.
Case Details:
Case Title: Suka Mahadu Khade & Ors. v. Bababai Tukaram Shevre & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7542 of 2026
Bench: Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata
Date: July 6, 2026
