Transfer of Adivasi land without requisite authority permission is impermissible and renders transactions legally invalid.

The Petitioners, claiming to be co-owners of ancestral property (Gat No. 57, Nashik), alleged they entered into a 99-year lease agreement dated 13th November 1997 with Respondent No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/-

The Petitioners challenged the deletion of their names from the Record of Rights by the Respondents.

While the Sub-Divisional Officer initially confirmed the Petitioners' names in 2023, the Tahsildar and the Additional Divisional Commissioner subsequently ruled in favor of the Respondents on 25th April 2025

The Petitioners sought to quash the Commissioner’s order and the Circle Officer’s possession notice dated 9th June 2026, while requesting a fast-track decision on their pending Revision Application

notarized documents lack evidentiary value in establishing title or long-term leasehold rights in the absence of registered instruments

statutory restriction on the transfer of tribal land (Adivasi land), which mandates prior permission from competent authorities for any valid alienation or transfer of interest

plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to pass orders aimed at curtailing frivolous litigation and subserving the ends of justice

The Court scrutinized the 1997 Agreement and found it to be a "sham" because it was merely a notarized document with no evidentiary weight

The Court noted the absence of proof regarding the payment of consideration, as the document vaguely claimed payments were made "from time to time" without supporting receipts

Most significantly, the Court observed that Respondent No. 1 is an "Adivasi" (Scheduled Tribe member). Under the law, any transfer of tribal land without the requisite permission from the concerned authorities is impermissible and void; the Petitioners failed to demonstrate such permission was obtained

Consequently, the Court found the Additional Divisional Commissioner’s order to be well-reasoned as it correctly addressed the illegality of the land transfer

the Court exercised its Article 226 powers to simultaneously dismiss the Revision Application pending before the Minister for Revenue

The Court upheld the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner and directed its implementation (including the transfer of possession) within four weeks

No costs were awarded