Case Note & Summary
The First Appeal arises from the dismissal of Special Civil Suit No.771 of 2011 by the 7th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, on 13 April 2018. The appellant, Union of India through the Deputy Salt Commissioner, had filed the suit seeking declaration of title over lands comprised in Mira, Manek/Shapur Salt Works at village Bhayander, Thane, and also sought setting aside of several orders passed by revenue authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the Salsette Estates Abolition of Land Revenue Exemption Act, 1951, and related statutes. The suit further prayed for possession, permanent injunction, damages, and mesne profits. The trial court framed issues covering ownership, maintainability, jurisdiction, limitation, res judicata, and entitlement to reliefs, and answered all except limitation against the plaintiff. The court held that the appellant failed to prove ownership, that the suit property was not included in the federal schedule under Section 172 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and that earlier litigation, including Civil Appeal No.288 of 1956, contained admissions by the State Government that the land belonged to defendant no.1. The trial court also noted the existence of sale deeds from 1928-1951 and the history of management of the estate under Section 44 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The appeal before the High Court was argued by senior counsel for all parties, with the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant. The matter was reserved for judgment on 13 February 2026 and pronounced on 30 April 2026. The available text of the High Court’s judgment, however, only recites the background and the trial court’s findings, and does not contain the High Court’s own analysis, reasoning, or final decision.
Issue of Consideration
FIRST APPEAL NO.1430 OF 2019
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (04) 101
First Appeal No. 1430 of 2019
Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ & Gautam A. Ankhad, J
Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Ms. Savita Ganoo, Mr. Ameya Mahadik, Mr. Siddha Pamecha, Ms. Simantini Mohite, Mr. Ashish Mehta, Mr. Adarsh Vyass, Mr. Rama Gupta, Mr. Rajdutt Nagre and Mr. Krishnakant Deshmukh, Advocates for the Appellant; Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Jaydeep Oza and Mr. Mustafa Nulwala, i/by Ms. Tabbassum Achhan, Advocates for Respondent No.1; Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Yohaan Shah, Ms. Rujuta Patil, Mr. Hasan Mushabber and Adv. Divishada Desai, Advocates, i/by Negandhi Shah & Hidayatullah, for Respondent No.2; Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 to 5
Union of India, Through the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400001
1. The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., 2. M/s Mira Salt Work Company, 3. The State of Maharashtra, 4. The Collector of Thane, 5. The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of title, possession, injunction, and setting aside of revenue orders, originally filed by the appellant
Remedy Sought
Appellant (Union of India) sought declaration of ownership, setting aside of orders passed by revenue authorities, and recovery of possession of suit lands
Filing Reason
The appellant claimed ownership over salt works lands, alleging that respondents had no right, and that revenue authorities had wrongly passed orders affecting its title.
Previous Decisions
Trial court dismissed the suit; various earlier proceedings including appeals, writ petitions, and Supreme Court directions preceded this litigation.
Issues
Whether plaintiff proves ownership of suit property?
Whether the suit is maintainable?
Whether the court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit?
Whether the suit is within limitation?
Whether the suit is barred by principle of res-judicata?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of suit property?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed as prayed for?
Judgment Excerpts
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 ...
The following issues were framed by the trial Court on 25th June 2013 and answered as under: ...
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 ...
Section 172 of the Government of India Act provides that “All lands and buildings which immediately before the commencement of part III of this act were vested in His Majesty for the purpose of Government of India as from that date”.
In the Judgment (Exh.262) passed in Civil Appeal No.288/1956, the State Government given an admission that the land belongs to defendant no.1 and only on the basis of Notification under Section 44 of B.T. & A.L. Act, the lands had become vested in the State Government.
Procedural History
Special Civil Suit No.771 of 2011 was filed by the appellant before the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane. The respondent nos.1 and 2 filed written statements on 21 July 2012. Issues were framed on 25 June 2013. Evidence was led by the plaintiff and defendants, including documentary and oral evidence. The trial court dismissed the suit on 13 April 2018, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove ownership, maintainability, or jurisdiction, and that the suit property was not included in the federal schedule under the Government of India Act, 1935. The court also relied on earlier admissions and proceedings. The appellant then filed First Appeal No.1430 of 2019 before the High Court of Bombay. Arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved on 13 February 2026, pronounced on 30 April 2026. Prior related proceedings included Appeal No.133 of 2008, Appeal No.14 of 1983, Appeal No.9 of 1993, Writ Petition No.2861 of 1983, Writ Petition No.2333 of 1983, Special Leave Petition No.14528 of 1998/Civil Appeal No.3055 of 1999, Civil Appeal No.6743 of 1996, RTS Application No.4 of 1999, Appeal No.38 of 2003, and Appeal No.97 of 2003, as well as a Supreme Court direction dated 18 November 2002.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 20
- Salsette Estates (Abolition of Land Revenue Exemption) Act, 1951:
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 44
- Government of India Act, 1935: Section 172
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 20 Rule 11, Section 80(2)
