Bhayandar Salt-Pan Land: Thane Court Upholds Lease Termination, Rejects Developer’s 99-Year Renewal Plea

Mumbai, October 9, 2026: A Thane district court has dismissed an appeal filed by Churchgate-based developer Miraland Developers Pvt Ltd, formerly known as Mira Real Estate Developers, challenging the termination of its lease over around 74 acres of salt-pan land at Bhayandar.

The court rejected the developer’s plea for renewal of the lease for another 99 years, holding that a government communication issued in 1938 did not confer an unconditional right to renewal.

District Judge P. A. Patki, in a judgment delivered on October 5, upheld the dismissal of the developer’s suit challenging the Union government’s Salt Department’s decision to terminate the lease in September 2013.

Lease Terminated Over Alleged Violations

The land, forming part of Mira Salt Works, was originally leased for salt manufacturing under a 99-year arrangement commencing in January 1924. A subsequent registered lease deed was executed in March 1955.

The Salt Department terminated the lease following an inspection in May 2013, which allegedly found that salt manufacturing had stopped, portions of the salt works had been levelled and around 1,000 coconut trees had been planted in the reservoir area. The department alleged violations of the lease conditions, which restricted the use of the land to salt manufacturing.

The developer disputed the allegations, contending that salt production was seasonal and that the coconut plantation was located on adjoining privately owned land. It also challenged the inspection reports and alleged that the action was intended to facilitate the proposed railway corridor project.

Court Rejects Claim For Lease Renewal

Rejecting the developer’s claim for renewal, the court held that the right to use land during the subsistence of a lease and the right to obtain a fresh lease after its expiry were distinct.

It observed that unless the original grant provided an absolute and unconditional right of renewal, an assurance in a government communication could not guarantee an extension irrespective of the policy prevailing at the time.

“Unless the grant confers an absolute and unconditional right of renewal, the assurance of a renewal in communication cannot by itself create an indefeasible right to a further lease irrespective of the Government policy applicable at the time of renewal,” the court observed.

The court further held that the government could change its policy in the public interest and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked to compel it to continue an earlier policy indefinitely.

It noted that the 2013 government policy changed the terms governing renewal of salt-pan leases but did not retrospectively curtail the existing lease, which was otherwise due to continue until 2023.

Government Grant Law And Rent Dispute

“The provision does not enlarge the rights under the grant,” the court said, referring to Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895. It clarified that the law required the terms of a government grant to operate according to their tenor but did not create a renewal right beyond what the grant itself provided.

The court also rejected the developer’s contention that the department’s subsequent demand for ground rent and assignment fees amounted to a waiver of the termination. It held that a demand for monetary dues, by itself, could not be treated as an indication that the termination had been withdrawn.

Court Upholds Termination Decision

On the alleged breaches, the court found that the developer had failed to produce reliable survey or measurement records to establish that the coconut plantation and alterations to the salt works were outside the leased land.

It also noted that the department had issued a show-cause notice, received the developer’s reply and provided an opportunity for a personal hearing before terminating the lease.

Concluding that the developer had failed to establish that the termination was illegal, that it remained in lawful possession or that it was entitled to renewal, the court declined to interfere with the trial court’s findings.

Also Watch:

“The plaintiff has failed to prove that the termination of the lease was illegal, it has also failed to prove possession and … is not entitled for renewal of the lease,” the judge held.

The court dismissed the appeal with costs, thereby upholding the trial court’s verdict.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/