The Bombay High Court has held that a notarized agreement without independent proof of consideration, bearing only a thumb impression, and involving transfer of Adivasi land without statutory permission, cannot confer any enforceable rights upon the transferee. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, finding it well-reasoned, passed after hearing both parties, and warranting no interference.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata found no merit in the petition and held the entire transaction to be a sham. The Bench noted that the Agreement relied upon by the Petitioners was merely a notarized document carrying no evidentiary value. The claim that Rs. 90,000/- was paid in cash was rejected, as the document only recorded that Respondent No. 1 acknowledged having received the amount “from time to time”, with no receipt or independent evidence of actual payment produced on record.
The Bench further observed that the document bore only a thumb impression purportedly of Respondent No. 1, and that beyond bald assertions, no other document substantiated the Petitioners’ rights in the subject property. Critically, the Bench noted that the land belonged to Respondent No. 1, who is an Adivasi, and that the attempted transfer was made without the requisite permission from the concerned authority, rendering the transaction impermissible in law.
Also Read No Mandatory Pre-Hearing Before Superseding Co-operative Bank Board Under Section 36AAA: Kerala HC
Briefly, the Petitioners, four brothers from Chakore village, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, filed a petition challenging an Order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, and an Order of possession issued by the Circle Officer, Trambakeshwar. The subject property was Gat No. 57, admeasuring 2 Hectares and 41 Ares, situated at Village Chakore, Taluka Trambakeshwar, District Nashik, described as ancestral property of both the Petitioners and the Respondents. The Petitioners claimed to have entered into a 99-year lease Agreement dated 13th November, 1997 with Respondent No. 1 for a total consideration of Rs. 90,000/-, and asserted continuous and peaceful possession of the property since prior to 1991.
The Respondents had earlier challenged Mutation Entry Nos. 259 and 381 standing in the Petitioners’ names, which was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 11th July, 2023, thereby confirming the mutation entries in favour of the Petitioners. Instead of challenging that order, the Respondents instituted a case before the Tahsildar, which ultimately resulted in an Order favouring the Respondents.
