The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging orders passed by revenue authorities, holding that a 99-year lease agreement was a sham transaction due to the absence of proof of consideration and requisite permissions. The judgment underscores the necessity of documentary evidence to substantiate property rights, particularly in cases involving ancestral land.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, four agriculturists from Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, claimed ownership and possession of property bearing Gat No. 57, ad-measuring 2 Hectares and 41 Ares (the subject property). They alleged that the property was ancestral and had been leased to them by Respondent No. 1 under an Agreement dated 13th November, 1997 for a period of 99 years at a total consideration of Rs. 90,000. The petitioners contended that despite receiving the entire consideration, the respondents surreptitiously deleted the petitioners' names from the Record of Rights and retained only their own names.
Key Facts
- The subject property is ancestral, claimed by both petitioners and respondents.
- Agreement dated 13th November, 1997: Petitioners alleged a 99-year lease with Respondent No. 1 for Rs. 90,000.
- Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381: Stood in the name of the petitioners but were challenged by the respondents.
- R.T.S. Appeal No. 31 of 2023: Filed by respondents against the mutation entries; dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11th July, 2023.
- KUKA Case No. 2 of 2023: Instituted by respondents before the Tahsildar, leading to an order dated 25th April, 2025 by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, favoring the respondents.
- R.T.S. Appeal No. 454 of 2025: Petitioners challenged the order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
- Order dated 9th June, 2026: Issued by the Circle Officer, Trambakeshwar, directing possession.
- Revision Application dated 22nd December, 2025: Filed by petitioners before the Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai, seeking expedited hearing.
Procedural History
- 13.11.1997: Agreement executed between petitioners and Respondent No. 1 for a 99-year lease.
- Pre-1991 to 2023: Petitioners claim continuous possession; respondents raise no objections.
- 31.01.2004: Alleged execution of a Sale Deed (not challenged by respondents until 2023).
- 2023: Respondents challenge Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381.
- 11.07.2023: Sub-Divisional Officer dismisses R.T.S. Appeal No. 31 of 2023.
- 2023: Respondents file KUKA Case No. 2 of 2023 before the Tahsildar.
- 25.04.2025: Additional Divisional Commissioner passes order favoring respondents.
- 27.10.2025: Additional Divisional Commissioner passes impugned order in R.T.S. Appeal No. 454 of 2025.
- 22.12.2025: Petitioners file Revision Application before the Minister for Revenue.
- 09.06.2026: Circle Officer issues order of possession.
- 17.06.2026: Writ Petition (No. 7542 of 2026) heard and reserved by Bombay High Court.
- 06.07.2026: Judgment pronounced.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners
- Claimed lawful possession of the subject property since before 1991 under the Agreement dated 13th November, 1997.
- Argued that respondents accepted the consideration of Rs. 90,000 but later deleted petitioners' names from the Record of Rights.
- Contended that respondents did not challenge the agreement or the Sale Deed dated 31st January, 2004 until 2023.
- Sought quashing of the orders dated 27th October, 2025 and 9th June, 2026, and a direction to expedite the Revision Application.
Respondents
- Opposed the petition, arguing that the transaction was a sham.
- Contended that the Agreement dated 13th November, 1997 was merely a notarized document without evidentiary value.
- Asserted that no receipt or proof of payment was produced to substantiate the claim of Rs. 90,000 consideration.
- Highlighted that the subject property belonged to an Adivasi (Respondent No. 1) and required requisite permissions for transfer, which were not obtained.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner.
- Quashing of the order dated 9th June, 2026 issued by the Circle Officer.
- A writ directing Respondent No. 5 (State of Maharashtra) to decide the Revision Application dated 22nd December, 2025 in a time-bound manner.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Agreement dated 13th November, 1997 could be upheld as a valid lease transaction
