Suka Mahadu Khade And Ors vs Bababai Tukaram Shevre And Ors

pmk 45-WP-7542-2026(F).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7542 OF 2026
1. Suka Mahadu Khade ]
Age : 58 Years, Occ : Agriculturist ]
2. Ganpat Mahadu Khade ]
Age : 56 Years, Occ : Agriculturist ]
3. Abhaji Mahadu Khade ]
Age : 53 Years, Occ : Agriculturist ]
4. Pandharinath Mahadu Khade ]
Age : 50 Years, Occ : Agriculturist ]
All residing at Chakore, Taluka ]
Trambakeshwar, District : Nashik ] … Petitioners
V/s.
1. Bababai Tukaram Shevre ]
Age : 58 Years, Occ : Agriculturist ]
Residing at Chakore, Taluka ]
Trambakeshwar, District : Nashik ]
2. Malabai Devram Bendkule ]
Age : 55 Years, Occ : Agriculturist, ]
Residing at Kone, Taluka ]
Trambakeshwar, District : Nashik ]
3. The Additional Commissioner ]
Nashik Division, Nashik ]
4. The Circle Officer, ]
Trambakeshwar, Nashik ]
5. The State of Maharashtra ]
Through Hon’ble Minister For ]
Revenue, Mantralaya Mumbai ] … Respondents
______________________________________
Mr. Nikhil M. Pujari for the Petitioners.
Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for the Respondent-State.
_____________________________________________
1/5

pmk 45-WP-7542-2026(F).doc
CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 17 June, 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 6 July, 2026
JUDGEMENT (Per : Kamal Khata, J.) :-
1) By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
th
the Petitioners seek to quash and set aside the Order dated 27 October,
2025 passed by the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
th
Division, Nashik in R.T.S. Appeal No. 454 of 2025 and the Order dated 9
June, 2026 issued by the Circle Officer, Trambakeshwar, Nashik. The
Petitioners additionally seek a Writ directing the Respondent No.5 to decide,
in a time bound manner, the R.T.S. Revision Application filed by them on
nd
22 December, 2025.
2) Mr. Pujari appearing for the Petitioners, submits that the property
bearing Gat No. 57, ad-measuring 2 Hectares and 41 Ares, situated at
Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, (‘the subject
property’), is the ancestral property of both the Petitioners and the
Respondents.
3) He submits that the Petitioners had entered into an Agreement dated
th
13 November, 1997 with Respondent No.1, taking the property on lease for
a period of 99 years for a total consideration of Rs.90,000/-. The Agreement
was duly executed and by the parties before witnesses.
4) He submits that, despite having received the entire consideration, the
2/5

pmk 45-WP-7542-2026(F).doc
Respondents, without the Petitioners’ knowledge, got the Petitioners’ names
deleted from the Record of Rights and retained only their names. The
Respondents had challenged the Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381, which
stood in the name of the Petitioners, by R.T.S. Appeal No. 31 of 2023. It was
opposed by the Petitioners and consequently, the said Appeal was dismissed
th
by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his Order dated 11 July, 2023, thereby
confirming the Mutation Entries.
th
5) Mr. Pujari submits that, instead of challenging the Order dated 11
July 2023, the Respondents instituted KUKA Case No.2 of 2023 before the
Tahsildar. He submits that the Tahsildar, as well as the Additional Divisional
th
Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik passed an Order dated 25 April,
2025 favouring the Respondents which has seriously prejudiced the Rights
of the Petitioners.
6) He submits that, the Petitioners have been in lawful, continuous and
peaceful possession of the property since prior to 1991, and continue in
possession thereof even today. He further submitted that, from 1991 until
th
2023, the Respondents neither objected to the Agreement dated 13
November, 1997, nor did they challenge the transaction nor the execution of
st
the Sale Deed dated 31 January, 2004 before any Competent Authority.
7) He submits that, in view of the above, the execution and
th
implementation of the impugned Order dated 27 October, 2025 passed by
the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in R.T.S.
3/5

pmk 45-WP-7542-2026(F).doc
th
Appeal No.454 of 2025 and the Order of possession dated 9 June, 2026
issued by the Circle Officer Trambakeshwar be stayed.
8) Ms. Mehra, AGP for the Respondent State, opposed the Petition.
9) We have heard both Advocates and have perused the entire record.
10) 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. The claim that consideration of Rs.90,000/-
was paid in cash is false. The document merely records that the Respondent
No.1 acknowledges having Rs.90,000/- “from time to time”; no receipt
evidencing any such payment has been produced, and no consideration is
shown to have in fact been paid by the Petitioner for alleged lease of 99
years. The document bears a thumb impression purportedly of Respondent
No. 1. Save for the bald assertions, there is no other document
substantiating the rights of the Petitioners in the subject property.
11) In the aforestated facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit
in the contentions of the Petitioners Advocate seeking a direction to
Respondent No.5 to expeditiously hear the Revision Application filed by
nd
them on 22 December, 2025.
12) The Order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik
Division, Nashik is well reasoned and warrants no interference. A plain
reading shows that it was passed after hearing both the parties and
considering their respective contentions in their entirety. Importantly, it
4/5

pmk 45-WP-7542-2026(F).doc
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. We find that the conclusion arrived is duly
justified.
13) In view of the above, we pass the following order:
a) The Petition is dismissed.
b) Additionally, by exercising our powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, to subserve the ends of justice and
with a view to curtailing further litigation, we also dismiss
the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners before the
Hon’ble Minister for Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
c) The Registry to furnish a copy of this Order to the Ministry
for Revenue, Mantralaya within a week of uploading this
order on the website of this Court.
d) The impugned Order of the Additional Divisional
Commissioner is upheld and directed to be implemented
within a period of four weeks from the date of this Order
being uploaded on the website of the Bombay High Court.
e) No order as to costs.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
5/5