MAHESHKUMAR GORDHANDAS GARODIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Writ Petition No.5362 of 2024, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dtd. 17/4/2023 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 dtd. 17/4/2023 as arbitrary, illegal and capricious and a replica of the order dtd. 1/10/2020 which has been challenged by him in Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021. The petitioner seeks to draw strength from the interim order dtd. 16/12/2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021 to contend that the order dtd. 17/4/2023 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 dtd. 16/2/1922 in favor of Nanabhoy Hormusji Bhiwandiwala for a period of 99 years commencing from 15/10/1917. The lease so granted and contained in the Indenture dtd. 16/2/1922 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 dtd. 16/2/1922 was executed between the Secretary of State for India in Council and Nanabhoy Hormusji Bhiwandiwala for a period of 99 years commencing from 15/10/1917 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 1/4/1930, 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 27/12/1947, 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 dtd. 11/2/2016 for a further period of 99 years and the matter is pending adjudication in civil Court.

(3.) On 4/3/2004, 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 2/11/2004 terminating the leases which were challenged in Writ Petition No. 904 of 2004. The High Court interfered in the matter and the writ petition was allowed with a direction to the Deputy Salt Commissioner to give a personal hearing to the lessee. In the meantime, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner instituted Suit No. 1173 of 2005 seeking a declaration that the lease termination orders both dtd. 2/11/2004 were illegal, null and void ab-initio.