Facts: The petitioner, Maheshkumar Gordhandas Garodia, claimed leasehold rights over large tracts of land in Kanjur and Bhandup, Mumbai (Arthur and Jenkins Salt Works), originally granted by the Secretary of State for India in Council in 1922 for 99 years. These leases were terminated in 2004 by the Deputy Salt Commissioner for alleged breaches, leading to a long-standing civil suit where an ad-interim injunction was granted in 2005 to protect the possession of the petitioner’s predecessor. In 2020 and 2023, the Collector of Mumbai Suburban District passed orders transferring portions of this land to the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) for the construction of the Metro Line-6 Car Depot. The petitioner challenged these orders, alleging they were passed in violation of subsisting court injunctions and that the State lacked ownership of the salt pan lands, which he claimed belonged to the Union of India.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 471 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 5362 of 2024 before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the Collector's transfer orders and to restore possession of the subject properties.
Issue: Whether a writ petition is maintainable to enforce contractual leasehold rights and restore possession when the underlying leases have been terminated and are the subject of a pending title dispute in a civil court?
Holding: No, the writ petitions are not maintainable and are dismissed.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner had no subsisting legal right as the leases were terminated in 2004 and had further expired by efflux of time in 2016. A writ court cannot adjudicate complex questions of title or declare a party's title when such facts are seriously disputed; such matters must be resolved through evidence in a civil suit. Furthermore, the Court noted a significant change in the legal regime regarding salt pan lands per a 2013 Government Resolution, which mandates fresh tenders and prohibits automatic renewals. The Court emphasized that the Metro Line-6 project is a time-sensitive public utility of great importance, involving massive public expenditure. It held that the Collector’s action in allotting land for an urgent public purpose was valid, especially since the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra had resolved their ownership disputes and agreed to the allotment. Alleged violations of interim injunctions in a pending suit do not provide a sufficient ground for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to restore possession.