Bombay High Court Refuses Claim Over Tribal Land, Says Notarised 99-Year Lease Agreement Has No Evidentiary Value

The Bombay High Court has exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to dismiss a revision application pending before the Revenue Minister, observing that such a course was necessary to subserve the ends of justice and curtail further litigation. The Court upheld the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner refusing to recognise the petitioners' claim over tribal land, finding that the transaction relied upon by them was unsupported by credible evidence.

A Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata was hearing a writ petition challenging the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner and the Circle Officer. The petitioners also sought a direction to the Revenue Minister to decide, within a stipulated period, a revision application filed by them. The petitioners claimed that the disputed property was ancestral property jointly belonging to them and the respondents and relied upon an agreement, under which respondent No.1 had allegedly leased the land to them for 99 years for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. They further contended that they had remained in continuous possession of the land since before 1991 and that the respondents had not challenged the transaction or the subsequent sale deed for several years.

The Court found no merit in the petitioners' case. It observed that the alleged agreement was merely a notarised document having no evidentiary value and that there was no material to substantiate the petitioners' claim that consideration of Rs.90,000/- had actually been paid.

The Court noted that the document merely recorded an acknowledgement of receipt of money "from time to time" without any supporting receipts or evidence of payment. It further found that, apart from their bare assertions, the petitioners had produced no document establishing any lawful right over the property.

The Court also held that the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner was well reasoned and had been passed after considering the rival contentions of both parties. It observed that the Commissioner had rightly recorded that the land belonged to respondent No.1, an Adivasi, and that its transfer had been sought without obtaining the requisite permission from the competent authority, which was impermissible in law.

In these circumstances, the Court held that no direction could be issued to the Revenue Minister to decide the pending revision application. Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to subserve the ends of justice and curtail further litigation, the Court proceeded to dismiss the revision application itself, upheld the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner and directed its implementation within four weeks.

Case Title: Suka Mahadu Khade v. Bababai Tukaram Shevre [Writ Petition No. 7542 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 312

Click Here To Read/Download Order