Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Mr. Aditya Bapat, Mr. Shehzad A. K. Najam-es-sani, Maneksha & Sethna
For the Respondents: Dr. Milind Sathe, Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Mr. Himanshu Takke, Mr. Saket Mone, Mr. Subit Chakrabarti, Mr. Raghav Taneja, Ms. Aashka Vora, Mr. Anil C. Singh, Mr. R. V. Govilkar, Mr. Rui Rodrigues, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. D. P. Singh, Mr. Adarsh Vyas, Mr. Gauraj Shah, Mr. Krish Kant, Mr. Rajdatt Nagre, Mr. Ranjeet Kumar

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia – Appellant versus The State of Maharashtra – Respondent:

Case Overview and Parties * The case involves Writ Petition Nos. 5362 of 2024 and 471 of 2021, decided by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 13-02-2026. (!) * The petitioner, Maheshkumar G. Garodia, challenged orders passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, regarding the termination of leases and transfer of land to MMRDA for the Mumbai Metro Line-6 project. (!) * The petitioner claimed rights derived from historical lease agreements (Indentures dated 16th February 1922) for salt manufacturing land in Kanjur. (!) * The petitioner alleged that the Collector's actions were arbitrary, illegal, and in defiance of an interim order dated 16th December 2020. (!)

Historical Context and Lease Status * The original leases were granted for 99 years commencing from 15th October 1917 and were set to expire on 14th October 2016. (!) * A notice for termination was issued on 4th March 2004, and the Deputy Salt Commissioner passed orders on 2nd November 2004 terminating the leases. (!) * The petitioner's predecessor challenged these termination orders in Writ Petition No. 904 of 2004 and Suit No. 1173 of 2005. (!) * An interim order dated 26th April 2005 granted temporary injunctions restraining the defendants from acting on the termination orders, but no final stay was granted on the termination orders themselves. (!) * The leases were deemed to have lapsed due to noncompliance with stipulated conditions and the efflux of time, with no specific prayer or order staying the operation of the 2004 termination orders. (!)

Jurisdiction and Maintainability * The High Court held that disputes concerning rights in property and complex questions of fact regarding title should generally be resolved in civil courts, not through writ petitions. (!) * The Court noted that the petitioner's claim for enforcement of rights under the Indentures was not permissible in writ jurisdiction as it would amount to a decree declaring title. (!) * The Court observed that the petitioner made contradictory statements, first claiming dispossession in WP No. 471 of 2021 and then claiming possession in WP No. 5362 of 2024, rendering the petitions maintainable only on the basis of indisputed facts which favored the respondents. (!) * The Court found that the petitioner had no subsisting right or interest in the properties after the termination of leases and the lapse of the lease term, thus lacking locus standi. (!)

Public Interest and Government Action * The government's actions in reallocating the property for the Mumbai Metro Car Depot were justified under public interest considerations. (!) * The MMRDA stated that the project is time-sensitive, involves heavy financial expenditure, and is crucial for reducing traffic congestion and providing public utility. (!) * The Court affirmed that the State is bound to act in a manner promoting public trust and cannot act to the detriment of public interest. (!) * A resolution dated 9th October 2013 mandated that no renewal of leases for salt manufacture would be granted, and fresh tenders would be called, changing the legal regime for such lands. (!)

Outcome * The Writ Petitions Nos. 5362 of 2024 and 471 of 2021 were dismissed. (!) * The Court affirmed the legality of the Collector's order allowing the transfer of land to MMRDA. (!) * All interim orders passed in these proceedings were vacated. (!)