Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ, GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J
Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.5362 OF 2024 | WRIT PETITION NO.471 OF 2021
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. (!)
JUDGMENT
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :-
In Writ Petition No.5362 of 2024, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 17th April 2023 passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District who is an officer appointed by the State of Maharashtra to be in charge of the revenue administration of the Mumbai Suburban District. The petitioner challenges the order dated 17th April 2023 as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and a replica of the order dated 1st October 2020 which has been challenged by him in Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021. The petitioner seeks to draw strength from the interim order dated 16th December 2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021 to contend that the order dated 17th April 2023 is contrary to law and passed in brazen defiance of the said interim order of this Court.
2. The petitioner, namely, Maheshkumar G. Garodia, aged about 78 years and engaged in business, states that the Secretary of State for India in Council granted a lease through an Indenture dated 16th February 1922 in favor of Nanabhoy Hormusji Bhiwandiwala for a period of 99 years commencing from 15th October 1917. The lease so granted and contained in the Indenture dated 16th February 1922 comprised of 251 acres and 21 gunthas of land within the limits of village Kanjur in the South Salsette Taluka of Bombay which are covered under Survey Nos. 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as also the Khoti Marsh land of village of Kanjur; called Arthur Salt Works. Similarly, an Indenture dated 16th February 1922 was executed between the Secretary of State for India in Council and Nanabhoy Hormusji Bhiwandiwala for a period of 99 years commencing from 15th October 1917 comprising 151 acres and 16 gunthas within village Kanjur in the South Salsette Taluka of Bombay annexed as Plot No. III; known as Jenkins Salt Works. On 1st April 1930, an Indenture of Assignment was made by the Administrators of the estate of late Jamasji Framji Umrigar for the residual term of 99 years of piece and parcel of land admeasuring superficial area of 97 acres and 24 gunthas situated within the limits of village Kanjur and Bhandup in the South Salsette Taluka of Bombay. The present controversy involves the aforementioned Arthur Salt Works and Jenkins Salt Works which are referred to hereinafter as the subject properties. On 27th December 1947, the subject properties were transferred by Nanabhoy Hormusji Bhiwandiwala to the purchasers, namely, Shivchandrai Rampratap, Badri Narayan Rampratap, Shiv Karanlal Harakchand and Hiralal Rampratap for valuable consideration for the balance portion of the lease period on the terms and conditions as prescribed thereunder. The petitioner states that he is a transferee in interest and lessee of the subject properties. According to the petitioner, there were subsequent transfers through sale, gift deeds, etc. and the records in the Salt Department were corrected accordingly. He further states that the possession of his predecessor in interest as a lessee in respect of the subject properties has been accepted by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law and Justice and Corporate Affairs in the Government of India and he is in use, occupation and possession of the subject properties. The petitioner further states that his possession over the subject properties is protected by the interim injunction in Suit No.1173 of 2005 and the interim order passed by this Court in WP No. 471 of 2021. He exercised his right for renewal of the leases as per Clause VI (2) under the lease by writing two letters both dated 11th February 2016 for a further period of 99 years and the matter is pending adjudication in civil Court.
3. On 4th March 2004, a notice was issued to Gordhandas Shivchandrai Garodia, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, for termination of both the leases. The Deputy Salt Commissioner passed two separate orders on 2nd November 2004 terminating the leases which were challenged in Writ Petition No. 904 of 2004. The High Court interfe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
