Bombay HC Paves Way for Metro Line 6: Dismisses Lessee's Bid to Block Kanjurmarg Land Handover

In a significant ruling for Mumbai's urban infrastructure push, the Bombay High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by Maheshkumar G. Garodia, a self-proclaimed transferee of century-old salt leases, challenging the transfer of prime Kanjurmarg land to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for a crucial Metro car depot. The bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad ruled that Garodia holds no subsisting right over the lands after their lease termination in 2004 and expiry in 2016, vacating all interim stays that had stalled the project.

From Colonial Salt Works to Metro Ambitions: A Century-Long Saga

The dispute traces back to 1922 indentures when the Secretary of State for India leased vast tracts—Arthur Salt Works (251 acres) and Jenkins Salt Works (151 acres)—in Kanjur village for 99 years starting October 15, 1917, strictly for salt manufacturing. Garodia claims succession through a chain of transfers beginning in 1947, asserting continuous possession protected by a 2005 interim injunction in Suit No. 1173 of 2005 (later renumbered).

Tensions escalated in 2004 when the Deputy Salt Commissioner terminated the leases for non-use in salt production, prompting the suit and a writ (WP 904/2004), where the High Court mandated a hearing. Garodia sought lease renewal in 2016 under Clause VI(2), but rejection followed. Meanwhile, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban, ordered land handovers to MMRDA—first on October 1, 2020 (challenged in WP 471/2021), withdrawn amid Union-state tussles, then on April 17, 2023 (WP 5362/2024)—for Metro Line 6's car depot, connecting Swami Samarth Nagar to Vikhroli.

Key timeline:

- 2004 : Leases terminated.

- 2005 : Interim injunction halts action on termination.

- 2016 : Leases expire; renewal denied.

- 2020-2023 : Collector orders possession to MMRDA/DMRCL.

- 2026 : Petitions dismissed (judgment pronounced February 13).

The core questions: Does Garodia retain locus standi to challenge the orders? Can writ jurisdiction entertain title/possession claims amid a pending civil suit?

Lessee's Stand: 'Illegal Eviction Amid Court Shields'

Senior advocate Aspi Chinoy argued the Collector's orders were arbitrary, defying a December 16, 2020 interim order staying the 2020 directive and restraining DMRCL operations. Garodia invoked State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh (1989), claiming no state right to forcible dispossession without due process, especially under subsisting injunctions. He sought status quo ante restoration, removal of MMRDA structures, and quashing of orders, stressing his protected possession.

Respondents' Counter: Expired Leases, Public Good Paramount

The Union of India (Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh) and Maharashtra (Advocate General Milind Sathe) countered that leases ended in 2004 for breaches (non-salt use) and by effluxion in 2016, stripping locus. A 2013 Ministry resolution mandates fresh tenders for salt lands—no renewals. MMRDA highlighted Metro Line 6's urgency: 14.47 km, 13 stations, Rs. 6,716 crore cost, serving 8 lakh by 2031, with Rs. 2,293 crore spent (87% viaduct progress). Delays cost Rs. 2.5-3 crore daily. They invoked policy shifts and precedents like Jugalkishore R. Joshi (2018), upholding tender-based allotments. Writs, they said, can't resolve title disputes ( Sohan Lal v. Union of India ).

Dissecting the Ruling: Writs No Venue for Title Tangles

The court meticulously traced lease covenants—prohibiting unapproved assignments, mandating salt production—finding Garodia's chain unproven without all co-transferees as parties. Termination stood unchallenged by stay; renewal untenable post-expiry.

Key principles applied:

- Writ limits : Title/possession disputes suit civil courts ( Sohan Lal , 1957 SC; A.V. Venkateshwaran , 1961 SC). "These writ petitions... require this Court to trace and examine a right... [an] exercise... undertaken in a proceeding before the Civil Court."

- Govt leases pre-1930 : Summary eviction possible under Government Grants Act, 1895 ( Azim Ahmad Kazmi , 2012 SC; Namdeo Lokman Lodhi , 1950 Bom).

- Public policy : 2013 resolution prioritizes tenders; land reservations modified for metro (MRTP Act notification unchallenged).

- Prior interim (Dec 2020) critiqued Collector's process but was prima facie ; no force alleged in dispossession.

Union-Maharashtra rift resolved (2024 allotment); MMRDA undertook compensation to true owners.

Court's Sharp Insights in Own Words

"The petitioner has no subsisting right flowing to the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be in possession... by virtue of an ad-interim order... A notice under section 113... was given... and the leases have lapsed by efflux of time."

"There are marked distinctions between a proceeding in a civil Court and before a writ Court... where there is a serious dispute on questions of fact and a dispute regarding right, title or interest... a proceeding by way of writ petition is not appropriate."

"The State is bound to act in manner so as to promote the public trust and it cannot act to the detriment to public interest."

Green Light for Metro: Project Accelerates, Lessee Suit Lingers

Writs dismissed; interims vacated, freeing 15 hectares (Survey 275) for depot—vital for Line 6 operations, slashing congestion, emissions. As news reports note, this clears hurdles for the time-sensitive project (target: Dec 2026), underscoring public utility over stale private claims. Garodia's civil suit persists for potential compensation, but metro rails roll unhindered, benefiting millions.