Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Over Sham 99-Year Lease Agreement on Adivasi Land - 2026-07-06

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Over Sham 99-Year Lease Agreement on Adivasi Land

A land dispute stretching back to 1997 has reached a decisive end as the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging revenue orders over property in Village Chakore, Nashik. The bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata branded the petitioners' purported 99-year lease agreement a "sham," finding no evidentiary basis for the claimed transaction.

The Disputed Plot at Gat No. 57

The subject property, measuring 2 hectares and 41 ares at Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, was claimed as ancestral by petitioner Suka Mahadu Khade. The petitioners asserted that a lease agreement executed on 13 November 1997 granted them the property for 99 years in exchange for Rs. 90,000, and that despite full payment, respondent Bababai Tukaram Shevre had their names removed from the Record of Rights.

Two Decades of Silence, Then Challenge

Advocate Pujari, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the respondents had no objection to the agreement or its implementation from 1991 through 2023. When the respondents challenged mutation entries through R.T.S. Appeal No. 31 of 2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal on 11 July 2023, confirming the entries in the petitioners' favour. The petitioners further contended that successive orders, including one from the Additional Divisional Commissioner on 25 April 2025, had wrongly prejudiced their rights. They sought an expeditious hearing of their revision application filed on 22 December 2025 before the Revenue Minister.

A Transaction That Would Not Withstand Scrutiny

The High Court, however, was unimpressed. Examining the agreement closely, the bench found that it was merely a notarized document carrying no evidentiary weight. The alleged consideration of Rs. 90,000 — said to have been paid in cash — was unsupported by any receipt. The document only vaguely recorded that Respondent No. 1 acknowledged having the amount "from time to time."

The Adivasi Land Transfer Fatal Flaw

More fundamentally, the court flagged a critical legal deficiency: the land belonged to a member of the Adivasi community, and the purported transfer was made without the requisite permission from the concerned authority. Such a transfer is impermissible under law, the court held, rendering the petitioners' claim untenable on that ground alone.

What the Court Said

> "We find no merit in the Petition. The entire transaction appears to be a sham. The Agreement on the record is merely a notarized document having no evidentiary value."

> "Importantly, it 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."

A Broader Cleanup

Going beyond merely dismissing the petition, the High Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to also dismiss the petitioners' revision application pending before the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai, curtailing any further litigation on the matter. The order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner was upheld and directed to be implemented within four weeks. No costs were awarded.