Government failed to prove title to salt works land absent vesting notification; historical private possession and revenue determinations confirming superior holder status prevail.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

This First Appeal assails the judgment dated 13^th April 2018 passed by the learned 7^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, whereby Special Civil Suit no.771 of 2011 filed by the appellant seeking declaration of its title over a piece of land comprised under Mira, Manek/Shapur Salt Works, at village Bhayander, district Thane has been dismissed (“impugned judgment”).

2. The appellant filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) It be declared by this Hon’ble Court that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit lands bearing Survey Nos. schedule A covered by Mira, Manek/Shapur Salt Works, village Bhayander, District Thane and that the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same;

(A)(1) The plaintiffs be granted leave U/s. 80(2) of CPC to file this suit before expiry of statutory period of two months after service of the same upon defendant nos.3 to 5;

(B) The orders passed by the Collector dated 18^th November 2002 in Application No.4 of 1999 filed by the defendant no.2 under section 20 MLRC, 1966 dated 8^th October 2010 passed by defendant no.5 in Appeal Nos.38 and 97 of 2003 and Appeal No.133 of 2008 as also the order passed by the Collector dated 5^th September 2008 under the provisions of Salsette Estates Abolition of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1951 be set aside;

(C) The defendant nos.1 and 2 be directed to decreed and order to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land bearing survey nos. as per schedule A covered by Mira, Manek/Shapur Salt Works, village Bhayander, District Thane;

(D) The defendants by themselves, their agents and servants be restrained by a permanent order of injunction of this Hon’ble Court from transferring, alienating or creating any third- party interest in the suit land and from using the same for any purposes other than salt manufacture and for doing any construction work on the same and from developing it;

(E) For interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause/s above;

(F) The defendants be decreed, directed and ordered to pay sum of Rs.2,078=00 towards damages as mentioned in the particulars of the plaint;

(G) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct enquiry into mesne profit earned by the defendants as per the provisions of Order 20 Rule 11 of C.P.C.; (H) For costs of this suit;

(I) For such other and further reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper be granted.”

3. On 21^st July 2012, respondent nos.1 and 2 filed their written statements opposing the suit on several grounds. Respondent nos.3 to 5 did not file any written statement. The following issues were framed by the trial Court on 25^th June 2013 and answered as under:

4. The appellant led evidence of Mr. Harikrishna Agarwal, the then Assistant Salt Commissioner (PW-1), in an endeavour to prove its case on title to the suit lands. Respondent nos.1 and 2 also led documentary and oral evidence of one witness each. Respondent nos.3 to 5 did not lead any evidence nor cross-examined any of the witnesses who had tendered evidence in the matter, on behalf of the other parties. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit inter alia holding as follows:

“17. It is admitted position that prior to this suit many legal proceeding were initiated in respect of the suit property. Those are;

1) Appeal No.133/08 filed by defendant no.1 challenging the order dtd 07/08/1992 passed by SDO directing to delete the name of defendant no.1 from the other rights column in the Mutation Entry No.4996 dtd.28 /01/1989.

2) Appeal No.14/1983 in which the