Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court's order that directed demolition of a recreational park and restoration of a historical lake. The Court held that the restoration order failed to consider the transformed ground reality and the substantial public benefit offered by the existing park. It quashed the High Court’s judgment and issued a set of specific directions to balance environmental restoration with urban development. The apex court stated that despite laudable intentions, remedial steps must consider contemporary usage patterns, ecological consequences of reversal, and practical feasibility. Accordingly, the Court permitted the recreational park to remain in place and directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to preserve the site exclusively for public use and undertake broader ecological restoration initiatives elsewhere.

The matter revolved around a plot identified as CTS No. 417, situated at Khajuria Tank Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, herein referred to as the Subject Property. Historically, this land hosted Khajuria Lake, a water body that allegedly existed for nearly 100 years and served functions such as idol immersion during Ganesh festivals.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Misuse Of Gangsters Act | Application Of Law Must Be Reasoned Not Routine | Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed To Mechanical Arrests And Pre-Printed Gang Charts

In 2008, pursuant to a directive issued by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (City), MCGM initiated a plan to develop theme gardens across various city wards. The Subject Property was identified for beautification, reportedly due to its neglected state and usage as a garbage dumping ground. MCGM floated a tender on 8 February 2008, and subsequently, M/s. Techno Trade Impex India Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as the contractor on 10 April 2008.

MCGM then procured formal approval for the beautification project from its Standing Committee via SCR No. 729 on 24 August 2009. Plans were developed through an appointed architect, with a budget of INR 5 crores allocated for the fiscal year 2008-09. Notably, the land was under the ownership of the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, and MCGM sought a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Collector on 30 June 2009. Nonetheless, construction proceeded and culminated in the public inauguration of the park in December 2011.

On 23 May 2012, MCGM submitted another letter to the Collector for formal transfer of the Subject Property, which remained unanswered. Meanwhile, the matter came into public discourse via a newspaper report published on 6 September 2012 by the Times of India, which detailed concerns about the alleged infilling of Khajuria Lake. This prompted Respondent No. 1, a public-spirited individual, to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court on 29 November 2012. The petition sought demolition of the construction and restoration of the original lake, citing ecological destruction, loss of aquatic habitat, and the obliteration of surrounding mangroves.

During pendency of the petition, the Collector issued a post facto sanction on 10 February 2014, approving the project and transferring the Subject Property to MCGM. The High Court, via judgment dated 3 August 2018, allowed the writ petition, holding that the redevelopment had obliterated the lake and thus violated the public trust doctrine. The High Court directed the State Government to take possession of the property, demolish the construction, and restore the water body.

Aggrieved, MCGM approached the Supreme Court. The appeal was accompanied by an order of status quo dated 16 November 2018, effectively staying implementation of the High Court’s directions.

MCGM, through Senior Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta, contested the existence of a functional lake at the time of development. It was asserted that the land had been designated as a Recreation Ground (R.G.) in the Development Plan of 1991, pursuant to Gazette Notification dated 13 April 1984, with no objections raised during that time. The counsel stated that the transformation was consistent with this designation and was executed under statutory mandates.

It was further submitted that the area had long been in disuse and served as a dumping ground, contradicting the claim of a viable aquatic ecosystem. The project was described as a responsible municipal initiative that created a green space now frequented by the local community, free of cost, and containing over 200 trees, a musical fountain, and various amenities.

In contrast, Respondent No. 1, represented by Advocate Mr. Kunal Cheema, pointed to documentary evidence indicating the existence of Khajuria Lake. Reference was made to MCGM’s own letter dated 30 June 2009, which described the Subject Property as ‘Khajuria Talao’. The respondent characterized the beautification project as a violation of ecological norms, resulting in destruction of an established aquatic habitat.

Objection was also raised to the 2014 post facto sanction, which was said to lack legal sanctity and be contradictory—purporting to approve the beautification while simultaneously prohibiting a change in land use. It was asserted that principles of environmental protection and the public trust doctrine warranted the lake’s restoration.

The Court noted the primary question to be "whether a recreational park developed on an alleged historical water body ought to be demolished and the water body restored or alternatively, whether the development warrants preservation given its current utility and the inexorable passage of time."

It was recorded that the High Court’s decision was predicated on "the public trust doctrine, whereby it held that the State could not permit the destruction of natural water bodies under any circumstances." The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the High Court’s perspective as "well-intentioned and prima facie the correct interpretation of settled notions," stated the necessity to apply the doctrine in the context of "practical realities and evolved ground conditions."

The Court elaborated: "Indeed, there cannot be a simplistic binary choice between a park or a pond, as each serves distinct ecological and social functions contingent upon specific circumstances, geographical location, and evolving usage patterns."

The judgment continued to examine the state of the water body at the time the project commenced, observing: "the Subject Property existed in an abandoned and dilapidated state, having deteriorated into a garbage dumping ground that had completely lost its original character as a water body." No material was found on record demonstrating "that the Subject Property was ever a functional pond with significant water content."

The Court observed that "photographic evidence placed before us vividly illustrates the Subject Property as a verdant, well-maintained urban oasis... serving the local community across all demographic segments."

In relation to the Collector’s post facto sanction, it was noted: "Even assuming the sanction’s invalidity, the fundamental issue remains whether restoration is feasible or desirable, given the passage of considerable time and the establishment of a functioning public amenity."

The Court recorded that "the recreational park presently delivers substantial public benefits that cannot be overlooked," including "oxygen generation, air purification, and microclimate regulation."

On the question of environmental consequences, it was stated that "the demolition would necessitate the removal of numerous trees, causing immediate environmental degradation requiring decades to remediate." Furthermore, the Court found "the absence of any natural catchment area," raising doubts about the viability of re-creating the pond.

Regarding the delay in raising objections, the Court noted: "The beautification project commenced in 2008 and reached completion by 2011... the petition was instituted before the High Court towards the tail end of 2012." It concluded: "This considerable delay has created an irreversible fait accompli."

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned High Court judgment. It directed MCGM to maintain and preserve the existing park in perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use without any predominant commercial activity. MCGM was further directed to constitute an Expert Committee within three months to explore the feasibility of developing an alternative water body in nearby areas to compensate for the ecological functions of the original water body.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Over SBI Loan Dispute | Cites No Evidence Of Settlement Or Entitlement To Property Under SARFAESI Act

Additionally, MCGM was instructed to undertake comprehensive ecological restoration of deteriorated water bodies within its municipal jurisdiction within a period of twelve months. The corporation was also ordered to file a compliance report before the High Court every six months for a period of three years. The Court requested the High Court to oversee the implementation of these directions in "true letter and spirit."

It was clarified: "this order shall not preclude the State Government from implementing any other additional measures for the overall improvement of environmental quality in the Navi Mumbai area in harmony with the directions issued hereinabove."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR; Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv.; Mr. Shubham Chandankhede, Adv.; Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.; Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv

Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. versus Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 792

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ________ / 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 29048 / 2018)

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

[Read/Download order]