Advertisement
The Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court's interim order declining to stay the termination of a lease over 150 acres of salt-pan land in Mulund, Bhandup and Kanjurmarg, part of a 782-acre holding in Mumbai. The decision rested on the observation that the land had not been used for salt production since 1995, making continuation inequitable to the Centre. While protecting the leaseholder's rights over the remaining 632 acres subject to ground rent and fees, the Supreme Court left the merits for the High Court to examine.
The Supreme Court has affirmed the Bombay High Court's interim order refusing to stay the termination of a lease over 150 acres of salt-pan land, part of a 782-acre parcel spread across Mulund, Bhandup and Kanjurmarg in Mumbai. The apex court clarified that a stay is not a statutory right in an appeal. Advertisement
It was observed that the High Court was justified in refusing relief on equitable grounds, as the 150 acres on the western side of the Eastern Express Highway had remained unused for salt production for nearly three decades. Leaseholder Vikas Walawalkar had not put the land to its intended use since at least 1995, and the High Court noted that allowing continuation under these circumstances would disadvantage the Centre.
The land had originally been leased in 1917 for 99 years by the Salt Commissioner and was transferred to Walawalkar in 1994. In 2004, the Central government terminated the lease citing grass overgrowth and non-compliance with minimum salt production standards.
Walawalkar had challenged this termination in the High Court in 2005. A single-judge bench recently ruled against him, upholding the termination of the entire lease. A division bench later partially vacated the stay on the western 150 acres while allowing him to retain rights over the remaining 632 acres, provided ground rent and assignment fees were paid.
Counsel for Walawalkar argued before the Supreme Court that lifting the stay on the 150 acres would cause irreparable harm if his appeal ultimately succeeded. The Solicitor General, appearing for the Centre, countered that even Walawalkar admitted non-use of the land since 1995. The Supreme Court refrained from evaluating the merits, stating that a full factual review should be left to the High Court to prevent prejudice to either side.
By upholding the High Court's decision, the apex court ensured that the Centre was not disadvantaged by prolonged non-use of land while safeguarding the leaseholder's rights over the remainder of the property. The case now rests with the High Court for a detailed review of the facts, underscoring the balance between procedural fairness and long-standing obligations.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
