Mumbai: In a decisive ruling, the Bombay High Court has dismissed the Centre’s claims over 220 acres of salt pan land in Bhayandar, asserting the land belongs to a private party under a historic contract of 1870.Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, in an April 30 judgment, observed that granting of lands undeniably bestowed upon the private person, not just a license to use, but a full spectrum of ownership rights, typical for such agreements during that period. The HC overturned the Centre’s claim for which it invoked a 1935 Act by which plots under management of the Salt Department were claimed by the then colonial govt.In Nov 1870, the then Secretary of State for India in Council granted to Ramchunder Luxumonjee and his heirs and successors close to 3,688 acres of land for 999 years in the villages of Bhayander, Ghodbunder and Mira. The annual rent was Rs 6,791 and 9 Annas and 6 Pies per year. The dispute, which traces its roots to British colonial times, saw the Central Govt asserting its rights, claiming that historically state-managed properties should revert to govt control. The Centre’s appeal tested the 1870 grant’s validity as it involved claims that due to salt production activities carried out for several decades the land would revert to being public property. The Centre approached the HC in 2019 to challenge a 2018 dismissal by a Thane civil judge of its claim to be declared owner of the 220-odd acres in Manek/Shapur Salt Works in Mira Bhayander, Thane district. The Centre had sought a declaration that The Estate Investment Company Pvt. Ltd and Mira Salt Work Company have no right or title to the lands.The Centre, represented by additional solicitor general Anil Singh, had invoked a provision under the 1921 Bombay Land Revenue Code (BLRC) that prohibits private land occupants from manufacturing salt without prior written permission from the salt collector. The HC, after hearing senior counsel Girish Godbole, Saurabh Kirpal and senior counsel Aspi Chinoy for the private parties, held as “misplaced” the Centre’s reliance on rule 76 of BLRC.Kirpal argued, “The mere use of a portion of the land (by Mira Salt work) for salt manufacture does not result in divestment or alteration of title.” The HC observed that the rule dealt with regulatory not proprietary aspects of the land.Citing the sanctity and clarity of the 1870 legal documentation, the HC said it “must be construed as effecting a divestment of Her Majesty’s Government revenue and proprietary interests and a corresponding conferment of a heritable, transferable and assignable estate in favour of the Grantee.‘’The HC clarified that historical use of the land for salt production under licenses issued by the Salt Department and the later invocation of such activities by the private company did not legally transition the property into govt ownership. It was not swayed by the Centre’s claim to the title citing the 1935 Govt of India Act provisions which vested listed plots used by the Salt Department with the British-run govt. Significantly, the lands in question do not find mention in the schedule of the Act, the court said.The HC judgment authored by Justice Ankhad, said the Centre “cannot claim title” on the basis of the 1935 GOI Act. The indenture was executed when the village lands were agricultural lands, and a subsequent license to make salt cannot change ownership to the Centre by divesting the Grantee of its proprietary rights in the lands.The HC also noted that the Centre’s claim first surfaced only in 1983 in the context of salt license renewals, and no explanation was forthcoming for 113 years or at least since 1938. The HC also noted that Maharashtra govt has no right or title to the lands and its claims were dismissed by the courts including the Supreme Court.The HC concluded that the Thane civil trial court had rightly held that the Centre failed to establish its ownership of the 220 acres and is thus not entitled to claim possession of the property. The ASG sought a stay of the HC judgment, which the bench declined.
