The Legacy of Mumbai’s Land Dynasties

Amid soaring real estate prices and widespread encroachments, the vast holdings of the metropolis’ early landowners hold stories of unfulfilled promises and untapped potential.

In 1625, when King Charles II of England wed Princess Catherine of Portugal, the Portuguese, in a gesture of diplomatic goodwill, gifted seven islands to the English monarch. But these islands—what we now call Mumbai—were far from the glittering jewel they would later become. Disjointed and undeveloped, they lacked the infrastructure of a proper city. There were no roads, no port facilities, just large, unused parcels of land. The British, seeing little immediate promise, couldn’t make much of these islands on their own. In an unexpected turn, King Charles II leased the entire collection to the British East India Company for a paltry annual rent of 10 pounds—equivalent to about Rs. 1,650 today.

Before the British, these islands had been under Portuguese control for centuries, acquired from the king of Surat through a treaty. The Portuguese established churches, built forts like those in Mahim, Bandra, and Vasai, and pursued religious conversions across the area. But they too saw little value in uniting and developing the islands. Perhaps this lack of interest contributed to the ease with which they handed them over in marriage to the English.

When the British East India Company took possession of the islands, they were little more than scattered villages along the coast. The land—mostly coastal, with pockets of forest and a few small settlements engaged in farming and fishing—held no tangible value. This is why the East India Company secured the land for a mere 10-pound rent. The Portuguese, during their rule, had already sold off most of the smaller islands to individuals at prices ranging from Rs. 750 to just Rs. 150. At the time, the land in Mumbai was largely ignored, its potential unrecognized, and its future a distant hope. The expectation, of course, was that once in British hands, the islands would eventually develop—though no one could have predicted the extraordinary transformation that would follow.

The British East India Company, initially drawn to India by the promise of trade, sought out fertile land for its operations. Among its acquisitions were parcels in the areas of Vikhroli, Nahur, and Bhandup. However, soon after, it became clear that these lands held little utility for the Company, and in 1830, they were sold off. Around this same region, the Parsi merchant Framji Banji had established a thriving agricultural enterprise. His lands stretched as far as Powai, where he cultivated mango orchards, the fruits of which were traded as far as China. Though the East India Company had purchased these lands, it wasn’t long before they were put on the market once again.

The Bombay High Court put the lands up for auction, and it was Pirojsha Godrej, another Parsi merchant, who emerged as the highest bidder. For the sum of just 30 lakh rupees, Godrej acquired 3,000 acres of land—a transaction that took place in the midst of the Second World War, in 1941-42. Remarkably, this purchase indicates that, even during that tumultuous period, land prices in Mumbai had yet to surge. Godrej’s investments didn’t end there; he went on to acquire an additional 400 acres, expanding his holdings to a staggering 3,400 acres—far from the opulent and highly sought-after land that would come to define Mumbai decades later. Today, Mumbai has roughly 34,000 to 35,000 acres of habitable land, with the Godrej family holding about 10 percent—around 3,400 acres. Of this, 3,050 acres are in Vikhroli, while an additional 350 acres are in Nahur and Bhandup. However, approximately 300 acres of the land have been encroached upon and become slums. The Vikhroli land is largely safe, though 1,750 acres are wetland, home to mangroves and sea plants, protected under CRZ regulations, meaning no construction can take place there. The remaining 1,300 acres, however, have construction permits for industry, business, and housing, but family disputes complicate its future. Some members seek to preserve the land for environmental reasons, while others push for housing development. As Mumbai’s largest landlord, the Godrej family's land is valued at about Rs 1 lakh crore. In recent years, they have started housing projects, alongside owning factories, worker colonies, and schools.

F.E. Dinsha, a prominent Parsi merchant, zamindar, and lawyer, inherited 2,200 acres of land from his father, which was subsequently placed in a family trust. By the time of his death in 1936, only 683 acres remained under ownership. This land, located in Borivali, Kanheri, and Malad in Mumbai’s western suburbs, has since been encroached upon, with 275 acres now occupied by slums.

Nearby, Bairamji Jijibhai once owned a vast expanse of 12,000 acres across seven villages, including Jogeshwari, Borivali, Goregaon, Malad, Kandivali, Majas, Mogra, Oshiwara, and Dindoshi. Today, his trust holds just 289 acres. A philanthropist, Jijibhai also owned Landsend in Bandra and part of the Bandra Fort, collecting an annual rent of around Rs 2,500. His legacy endures through institutions like B.J. Medical College in Pune and Ahmedabad, still funded by his donations.

In the areas stretching from Kandivali to Dahisar, and along Kanjurmarg, the trader V.K. Lal once acquired between 70 and 100 acres of land in the pre-independence era. Today, his V.K. Lal Construction Company is a prominent player in Mumbai’s construction sector, having completed 40 buildings across the city and beyond, amassing nearly 200 acres of developed property. Even in the eastern suburbs, individuals have held onto vast tracts of land. One such figure is Pratap Singh Vallabhdas Surjee, who owns 647 acres in Bhandup. Nearby, the Ardeshir Trust controls 508 acres in Chembur, while the A.H. Wadia Trust holds 361 acres in the Kurla-Santacruz belt, including areas like Mohili, Kole Kalyan, and Marol. Originally owned by the Kama family, which also ran Mumbai Samachar, the Wadia Trust sold five and a half acres of land in Kalina for Rs 75 crore to Global Eco Hotels just two years ago. Further to the north, the Mohammad Yusuf Khot Trust owns 249 acres in Powai and Bhandup. Known for his philanthropy, Khot was the owner of the Bombay Navigation Company, with land leased to him by his trust, where Larsen & Toubro now operates. Despite this, much of the land has been encroached upon. In Deonar, Hirajibhai Dinsha Bilimoria controls 206 acres, adding to the sprawling legacy of these landowners.

Together, these nine zamindars, trusts, or companies own nearly 7,000 acres in Mumbai, comprising roughly 20 percent of the city’s habitable land. Meanwhile, the common Marathi working-class resident, for whom the idea of purchasing a home of 180 or 220 square feet is a distant dream, often resorts to living in distant suburbs or makeshift huts, commuting to work each day. Had the state government invoked the Urban Land Ceiling Act to acquire these vast tracts, organizations like MHADA could have built affordable housing for the city’s working class. Instead, the government took minimal action, only acquiring select parcels for nominal purposes. As a result, landmarks like the Goregaon Sports Club, Malad Bus Depot, and various reservoirs sprang up in areas that might have otherwise been used for housing.

In Goregaon East, a significant colony of Naagari Niwara Parishad (NNP) homes arose through the efforts of Mrinal Gore, who successfully pressured the government to seize land for her organization’s use. Elsewhere, some land acquired under the Act was set aside for artists, journalists, and sportspersons who were displaced, providing low-cost housing. Yet, much of the land remained unseized, leading to slums and unauthorized constructions taking root. In many cases, these lands were eventually returned to their original owners, though the encroachments persisted. It is said that the slums occupying such land now cover an area equal to that of 60 Azad Maidans!

(The author is a veteran journalist who has spent decades chronicling Mumbai’s evolving social, cultural and political tapestry.)