98‑year‑old private lease on 3,500 acres of ST land......?

"Do Not Fear Privatization in the Economic Revitalization of 'Lalpari'… but Do Not Obscure Future Rights Either!"

850 sites of land are in the possession of developers for use; initially a relief in revenue, but what about the income of future generations…? Ownership remains with ST, but who will guarantee control and profit?

Mumbai, 9th (Anant Nalavde) – To lift the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (ST), which is operating at a loss, the state government opened a path for commercial development of more than 3,500 acres of additional land across about 850 sites on Friday. The reason is that the government has approved the development of these lands on a leasehold of 49 years plus another 49 years, i.e., a total of 98 years, through a public‑private partnership (PPP). Transport Minister Pratap Sarnaik himself provided the information today.

The government claims that ST can receive a lump‑sum premium and regular income from these assets. However, while seeking solutions to today’s financial difficulties, the key question is how much of tomorrow’s income will remain secure. In reality, even if ST does not sell its land immediately, the model of granting commercial use rights to private developers for nearly a century will either increase the corporation’s financial self‑reliance or increase its dependence on private partners for future income…? This question is not limited to ST alone but concerns the management of public assets.

Today’s lump‑sum money…; but where is the guarantee of tomorrow’s income?

The idea of using land for commercial purposes to revive ST’s finances is not new. However, this time the large area, long leasehold, and structure encouraging private investment have increased the significance of the decision. According to reports on the cabinet decision dated 14 July 2026, the development is expected to yield a lump‑sum premium of about 14 crore rupees and an annual income of about 60 crore rupees. These are projected figures.

Actual revenue will depend on tenders, contracts, and project implementation. These amounts could ostensibly provide financial relief to ST. Funds could be made available for modernizing bus stations, passenger facilities, depot development, and other services. However, receiving a lump‑sum premium and extracting maximum income from the property over many decades are different matters. A large sum received initially does not automatically make long‑term financial transactions profitable. If the market value of the land rises in the future, how much of that appreciation will ST benefit from? How many years will the annual rent or revenue share increase, and by what formula? Will ST’s share remain appropriate compared to inflation, market price, and the developer’s commercial profit? The answers to these questions must be clear in the contract terms.

The land remains ST’s…; then what is the limit of private control?

Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis reportedly clarified a few days ago that ownership of the land will remain with ST. Therefore, calling this decision a direct sale of land or complete privatization of ST would not be accurate. However, ownership remaining and actual control over land use are two separate matters. The 98‑year leasehold is a contract related to many generations. If commercial complexes, residential projects, or other commercial facilities are built on the land during this period, how effective will ST’s rights be regarding usage, maintenance, redevelopment, and revenue sharing? This will also be important to observe.

What happens to the property and buildings after the contract ends? If the developer fails to meet the stipulated conditions, how effective will the process of contract termination or repossession be? Who will bear the risk if the project does not deliver the expected income? The answers to these questions should be clearly stated in publicly available contracts. Even so, the opportunity for private developers to invest and the protection of the public corporation’s future economic rights must be achieved simultaneously.

What are the benefits, what are the risks…?

Benefits side: Using ST’s additional land can create a new source of revenue. Modern bus stations, commercial facilities, and planned development can benefit passengers. Private investment can also provide an opportunity to cover some of the capital costs required for development. However, the actual fulfillment of these benefits will depend on the terms and implementation of the projects.

**Risk side:** Limited competition in tenders, inadequate land valuation, weak provisions for revenue increase, ambiguities in contracts, or terms that give developers disproportionate benefits could limit the corporation’s potential income. A long‑term contract may also reduce flexibility for future strategic decisions. These risks are real; evidence is needed to reach that conclusion. However, preventing them at the contract‑signing stage is the responsibility of the government and the corporation.

The government will have to assess the political cost in the future......?

The political significance of this decision is also considerable. Using assets to alleviate the corporation’s financial difficulties is an argument the government can make. Yet, if the financial benefit calculation is not transparent when long‑term public assets are handed over to the private sector, political controversy may arise later. This is because the public must see the contract terms, market valuation, and actual revenue information to compare today’s revenue with potential future losses.

What will be decisive are: separate tenders for each site, competitive bidding, independent market valuation, provisions for regular revenue review, and public availability of the contracts. It must also be ensured that bus services, depots, workshops, and the land required for future expansion are secured.

**A test of Lalpari’s revival today**

Commercial development of the corporation’s lands could be a useful option for financial self‑reliance. However, its success cannot be measured merely by how many acres are developed or how many crore rupees are received initially. Equally important are the consistent increase in the corporation’s income, improvements in passenger services, the amount of funds made available for employee and passenger needs, and how securely the rights over public property are maintained.

Today it is essential that money flows into the corporation’s treasury; but in exchange for that money, the doors to future revenue must not be closed. A 98‑year lease is not automatically proof of privatization; likewise, the fact that ownership remains with the corporation does not eliminate all concerns. Therefore, the true test of this decision will lie in transparent contracts, competitive tenders, protection of the corporation’s future needs, and implementation that prioritises the public interest.
............................(End)..............