The Bombay High Court has clarified that when the renewal clause does not survive the lease’s termination and is also contrary to the current government policy against renewing leases for salt pan lands, then the petitioner’s claim for renewal of the lease is untenable. Since the lease deeds in favour of the petitioner’s predecessors were terminated by the Deputy Salt Commissioner on 2nd November 2004, and the operation of this termination order was never stayed by any court, the Court held that the 99-year lease term expired by efflux of time on 14th October 2016.
The Court, therefore, held that the petitioner lacks the locus standi to challenge the Collector’s orders allotting the land to MMRDA for a public project. The Court held that writ jurisdiction is not the proper forum for adjudicating complex factual disputes over property titles or for enforcing interim orders of a civil court.
The Court further emphasised that the significant public interest in the Metro project, coupled with the resolution of the ownership dispute between the Union and State governments, further weighed against granting the discretionary relief sought by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed primarily because the petitioner failed to establish any subsisting legal right, title, or interest in the subject properties.
The Division Bench comprising of the Chief Justice Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that the lease deeds were terminated by orders dated 2nd November 2004, and crucially, no court has passed an order staying the operation of this termination. The effect is that the lease deeds stand terminated, and there is no subsisting right flowing to the petitioner from them. Furthermore, the leases, which commenced on 15th October 1917 for 99 years, expired by efflux of time on 14th October 2016. Thus, the covenant for renewal of the lease does not survive the termination of the lease itself.
The Bench opined that these writ petitions, which require tracing and examining rights through various historical Indentures and instruments of transfer, are not suitable for writ jurisdiction. Such an exercise is more appropriate for a Civil Court where parties can lead evidence to prove facts and seek relief.
The Bench held that where there is a serious dispute on questions of fact and regarding right, title, or interest, a writ petition is not the appropriate proceeding, as any decision would amount to a decree declaring a party’s title. Thus, a writ petition based on the purported violation of an interim injunction granted by a Civil Court is not maintainable.
Further, the Bench also acknowledged that the initial conflict over ownership between the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra, which was a key factor in the earlier interim orders, has been resolved. The Union of India agreed to allot the lands to the Government of Maharashtra and subsequently withdrew its own writ petition challenging the Collector’s order. This settlement nullifies the petitioner’s challenge to the Collector’s jurisdiction on the grounds that the State was not the owner.
The Bench gave significant weight to the public purpose of the land acquisition, and said that the land is required for the Metro Line-6 car depot, an important urban transport project aimed at reducing traffic congestion in Mumbai. The Bench also noted a change in government policy through the Resolution dated 9th October 2013, which mandates that Central Government land for salt manufacture shall only be leased via tender and that no existing leases will be renewed. This policy supports the respondents’ position.
Briefly, the case concerns large parcels of land known as Arthur Salt Works and Jenkins Salt Works in Kanjur, Mumbai. The original lease for these properties was granted by the Secretary of State for India in Council to Nanabhoy Hormusji Bhiwandiwala through Indentures dated 16th February 1922, for a period of 99 years commencing from 15th October 1917. Through a series of subsequent transfers, including assignments, sales, and gift deeds, the petitioner claimed to be a transferee in interest and lessee of the subject properties.
Later, on 2nd November 2004, the Deputy Salt Commissioner terminated both leases. The petitioner’s predecessor challenged this termination, by seeking a declaration that the termination orders were illegal and void. In the meantime, the court granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from taking any steps pursuant to the termination orders. Subsequently, the court passed another order restraining the petitioner from creating any third-party rights in the properties. The petitioner then sought renewal of the leases for a further 99 years.
The present controversy arose when the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, passed an order to hand over possession of the properties to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRCL). This order was challenged by the petitioner. Although this order was later withdrawn, the Collector passed a new, similar order transferring 15 hectares of the land to MMRDA for the Metro Line-6 car depot.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Aspi Chinoy, along with Advocates Aditya Bapat, and Shehzad A. K. Najam-es-sani, for the Petitioner
Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe, Additional Solicitor General Anil C. Singh, Senior Advocate R.V. Govilkar, along with Advocates Jyoti Chavan, Himanshu Takke, Saket Mone, Subit Chakrabarti, Raghav Taneja, Aashka Vora, Rui Rodrigues, Aditya Thakkar, D. P. Singh, Adarsh Vyas, Gauraj Shah, Krish Kant, Rajdatt Nagre, and Ranjeet Kumar, for the Respondents
