Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Challenging Transfer of Kanjur Salt Works Land for Mumbai Metro Line-6; Disputed Lease Rights Must Be Adjudicated by Civil Court.

The matter comprised writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, concerning possession and transfer of the subject Kanjur lands.

In Writ Petition No. 5362 of 2024, the petitioner sought: Certiorari for quashing the Collector's order dated 17 April 2023; Mandamus restraining the authorities from implementing the said order; Protection against taking possession of or altering the status quo of the subject lands; Removal of the temporary shelter and security personnel from the lands; and Interim protection pending final disposal of the petition. In Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021, the petitioner sought quashing of the Collector's order dated 1 October 2020 and restoration of status quo ante, including removal of MMRDA/DMRCL machinery and restoration of possession

The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court contending that he was a transferee-in-interest and lessee of the subject properties and that the authorities had acted illegally in dealing with the lands and transferring possession to MMRDA.The petitioner relied upon historical lease instruments, subsequent transfers, civil-court interim protection and the earlier interim order of the High Court dated 16 December 2020. He alleged that the Collector's order dated 17 April 2023 was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the earlier protection granted by the Court.

1. Termination orders dated 2 November 2004 The Deputy Salt Commissioner had terminated the leases. The predecessor-in-interest challenged the termination and subsequently instituted Suit No. 1173 of 2005, seeking declarations that the termination orders were illegal and void ab initio. 2. Interim injunction dated 26 April 2005 The Civil Court granted interim protection in favour of the predecessor-in-interest. The Court found, prima facie, issues concerning violation of natural justice and the fact that a ground relied upon for termination had not been mentioned in the show-cause notice. 3. Order dated 16 April 2016 The Civil Court restrained the plaintiffs from creating third-party rights in the subject lands and directed maintenance of status quo, particularly considering the pending disputes and the approaching expiry of the original lease term. 4. Bombay High Court interim order dated 16 December 2020 The High Court had granted interim protection in the earlier proceedings after observing prima facie concerns regarding the Collector's decision-making process. The Court had questioned the manner in which possession was transferred to MMRDA without giving the affected parties an opportunity to respond. However, in the present final judgment, the Division Bench clarified that those observations were prima facie observations made at the interim stage and could not by themselves determine the petitioner's final rights.

Whether the petitioner had a subsisting right, title or interest in the subject properties on the basis of the historical lease deeds and subsequent instruments of transfer? Whether disputed questions concerning the petitioner's leasehold rights and title could be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution? Whether the petitioner could seek restoration of possession/status quo ante by relying upon interim orders passed in the civil proceedings? Whether the Collector's order dated 17 April 2023 transferring 15 hectares of the subject land to MMRDA could be challenged by the petitioner despite the disputed and terminated lease rights? Whether the petitioner's claim for renewal under Clause VI(2) of the lease deeds survived termination and expiry of the leases?

Petitioner's Arguments The petitioner contended that: The State of Maharashtra had no right, title or interest over the subject properties. The petitioner derived rights through valid historical instruments of transfer. The Collector's order dated 17 April 2023 was contrary to the earlier interim protection granted by the High Court. The writ petitions were maintainable against arbitrary and illegal actions of the authorities. Reliance was placed upon Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh v. State of U.P. and the High Court's earlier order dated 16 December 2020. Union of India's Arguments Additional Solicitor General contended that: The leases had already been terminated by orders dated 2 November 2004. The petitioner had no subsisting right or interest in the properties. The leases had been granted for salt manufacture, whereas the petitioner had not established continuing use for that purpose. The petitioner therefore lacked locus to maintain the writ petitions. The 2013 policy had changed the regime concerning salt-pan lands and provided that renewal would not be granted. Reliance was placed upon Jugalkishore R. Joshi v. Union of India. The petitioner was also alleged to have taken contradictory positions and sought conflicting reliefs. MMRDA's Arguments MMRDA submitted that: The petitioner had no subsisting interest in the properties. The petitioner had taken inconsistent positions regarding possession. Restoration of possession could not be granted merely on the basis of the earlier interim injunction. The Metro Line-6 project was an important public infrastructure project. The 15 hectares were required for the Metro Car Depot and associated works.

Where a writ petition requires the Court to determine disputed rights arising from historical lease deeds, assignments and instruments of transfer, involving disputed questions of fact and title, such adjudication is not ordinarily amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and must be pursued before the competent Civil Court. The Court observed that the petitioner's claim required examination of various Indentures and instruments of transfer and determination of the rights flowing from them. Such an exercise could be undertaken before a Civil Court where parties could lead evidence. The Court further held that the lease deeds had been terminated on 2 November 2004 and subsequently expired by efflux of time on 14 October 2016. Since there was no order staying the operation of the termination orders, the petitioner could not claim a subsisting right under the terminated and expired leases in the writ proceedings. The Court also held that the renewal clause could operate only upon due performance of the lease conditions and that Clause VI(2) did not survive termination of the lease in the circumstances considered by the Court.

On disputed title and writ jurisdiction “These writ petitions which extensively refer to different Indentures and Instrument of transfer necessarily require this Court to trace and examine a right in the petitioner for a relief.” The Court held that such an exercise could be undertaken in a Civil Court, where the parties could lead evidence and establish their respective claims. On the distinction between Civil Court and Writ Court “There are marked distinctions between a proceeding in a civil Court and before a writ Court.” The Court emphasised that the writ court is concerned with whether the fundamental facts and legal requirements necessary for granting relief under Article 226 are established. On the lease termination The Court observed that in the absence of an order staying the termination order dated 2 November 2004, the lease deeds stood terminated and no subsisting right could be claimed from them in the writ proceedings. On final dismissal “In view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions, and accordingly, Writ Petition Nos.5362 of 2024 and 471 of 2021 are dismissed.” The Court further directed that all interim orders passed in the proceedings stand vacated and disposed of the connected interim applications.

1 . 2004 – Termination of lease: On 4 March 2004, the Deputy Salt Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest proposing termination of the Arthur Salt Works and Jenkins Salt Works leases. On 2 November 2004, separate orders terminating the leases were passed. 2. 2004–2005 – First writ petition and civil suit: The termination orders were challenged in Writ Petition No. 904 of 2004. The High Court directed that the lessee be given a personal hearing 3. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest instituted Suit No. 1173 of 2005 challenging the lease termination orders and seeking a declaration that the leases continued to be valid. 4. 26 April 2005 – Interim injunction in civil suit: In Notice of Motion No. 1246 of 2005, the High Court granted interim protection restraining the authorities from taking steps pursuant to the 2 November 2004 termination orders. The Court observed prima facie that the termination orders raised issues concerning natural justice and the authority of the respondents. 5. 2016 – Restraint on creation of third-party rights: After the suit was transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court and renumbered as Suit No. 6256 of 2005, an application by the sixth respondent was allowed by order dated 16 April 2016. The petitioner was restrained from creating any third-party rights in the subject properties. 6. 2016 – Lease expiry/renewal: The original 99-year leases commenced on 15 October 1917 and therefore expired on 14 October 2016. The petitioner had sought renewal under Clause VI(2) of the lease. The renewal claim was subsequently rejected and the issue was brought before the Civil Court by amendment. 7. 1 October 2020 – Collector’s possession order: During the pendency of the civil proceedings, the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District passed an order directing that possession of the subject properties be handed over to MMRDA, for transfer to DMRCL, in connection with the Metro project. This order was challenged by the petitioner in 8. Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021. 9. 16 December 2020 – Interim protection by High Court: The High Court granted interim relief staying the operation of the Collector’s order dated 1 October 2020 and restraining the ongoing operations of DMRCL on the subject land. The Court made strong prima facie observations concerning the Collector’s decision-making process, including the absence of notice to relevant parties. 10. 2022 – Union of India’s challenge: The Union of India also challenged the Collector’s 1 October 2020 order in Writ Petition No. 3931 of 2022. The petition was disposed of after the Collector subsequently withdrew the impugned order. 11. 17 April 2023 – Fresh Collector’s order: The Collector passed a fresh order directing transfer of 15 hectares of the subject land to MMRDA for the Metro Line-6 car depot and related works. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 5362 of 2024. 12. 2024–2025 – Change in position of Union of India: The Union of India and the State of Maharashtra resolved their dispute concerning the land. The Union of India agreed to allot the land to the State Government by order dated 17 March 2024. Consequently, the Union of India withdrew Writ Petition No. 4769 of 2024 on 5 May 2025, which had challenged the Collector’s order dated 17 April 2023. 13. 2025 – Status of Metro project: During the proceedings, MMRDA placed on record that substantial work had already been undertaken for Metro Line-6 and its car depot. It stated that the project was time-sensitive and targeted for completion by December 2026. 14. 10 December 2025 – Judgment reserved: After hearing the parties, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad reserved the judgment. 15. 13 February 2026 – Final judgment: The Bombay High Court dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 5362 of 2024 and 471 of 2021. The Court held, inter alia, that the disputes concerning the petitioner’s rights under the historical lease instruments involved disputed questions of fact and title that were more appropriately adjudicated by the Civil Court and were not amenable to determination in the writ proceedings. 16. Interim orders vacated: Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petitions, all interim orders passed in the proceedings were vacated. Interim Application (L) No. 31719 of 2025 and Interim Application No. 408 of 2021 were disposed of.

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882: section 113
• Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:
• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):