The Supreme Court, overturning a High Court order, ruled that restoring a demolished lake to its original state was not feasible given the passage of time and the establishment of a public park. The Court balanced environmental conservation with public welfare, emphasizing that the public trust doctrine must consider practical realities. It directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to maintain the park, explore alternative water bodies, and restore other deteriorated water bodies.
Facts Of The Case:
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) undertook a redevelopment project on a plot (CTS No. 417) at Khajuria Tank Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai, for a theme park. This project allegedly led to the obliteration of a lake that had existed at the premises for approximately 100 years. In 2008, MCGM selected the Subject Property for development as part of a directive to create Theme Gardens in Mumbai. MCGM claimed the lake was unused, in bad condition, and used for garbage disposal, prompting its beautification into a recreational space.A tender was floated on February 8, 2008, and M/s. Techno Trade Impex India Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as the contractor on April 10, 2008. The project received formal approval from the Standing Committee of MCGM on August 24, 2009. Although the Subject Property belonged to the Collector and not MCGM, an application for a No Objection Certificate was submitted to the Collector on June 30, 2009. Despite the pending requests, the beautification work proceeded and was completed and inaugurated in December 2011.A news report on September 6, 2012, concerning the alleged filling of Khajuria Lake, prompted Respondent No. 1 to file a Writ Petition before the High Court on November 29, 2012, seeking demolition and restoration of the lake. During the petition’s pendency, the Collector issued a post-facto sanction on February 10, 2014, approving the project and transferring the Subject Property to MCGM. The High Court of Bombay allowed the writ petition via judgment dated August 3, 2018, directing the State Government to take possession, demolish the construction, and restore the lake. MCGM subsequently appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The dispute originated with a Writ Petition filed in public interest before the High Court of Bombay. This petition challenged the redevelopment of a theme park by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), which allegedly resulted in the obliteration of a 100-year-old lake. On August 3, 2018, the High Court allowed the petition, issuing a judgment (Impugned Judgement) that directed Respondent Nos. 2-8 (State Government) to take possession of the Subject Property, demolish the construction, and restore the lake.Aggrieved by this decision, MCGM preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court of India. During the pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court, via an order dated November 16, 2018, directed a status quo, thereby staying the implementation of the High Court’s Impugned Judgment. Consequently, the recreational park has continued to exist and function in its present form. The Supreme Court subsequently heard the arguments from both parties and rendered its judgment on May 30, 2025, allowing the appeal and setting aside the High Court’s Impugned Judgment.
READ ALSO :Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the core issue was whether to demolish a recreational park on an alleged historical water body to restore the water body, or to preserve the park due to its utility and the passage of time, seeking a balance between environmental conservation and public welfare. While the High Court’s reasoning, based on the public trust doctrine, was well-intentioned, it warranted reconsideration through the lens of practical realities. Environmental jurisprudence, the Court noted, must contextually evolve, accounting for both ecological imperatives and developmental exigencies, avoiding a simplistic binary choice between a park and a pond. The public trust doctrine, while imposing a duty to protect resources, must be calibrated with contemporary public needs and sustainable development goals. The Court highlighted that MCGM affidavits stated the “lake” was a garbage dumping ground by 2009, having lost its original character. The current park provides significant public benefits as a green space in an urban environment. Demolition would cause environmental degradation, financial waste, and likely an unsustainable, potentially hazardous, recreated pond. The Court also noted the significant delay in challenging the project, which commenced in 2008 and was completed by 2011, with the petition filed in late 2012. This delay created an irreversible situation, legitimizing the park through time and public acceptance
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Impugned Judgment passed by the High Court. To ensure ecological balance within the larger urban ecosystem and preserve the existing park, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to maintain and preserve the existing park in perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use without any predominant commercial activity. Additionally, MCGM is 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. MCGM must also undertake comprehensive ecological restoration of deteriorated water bodies within the municipal jurisdiction within a period of twelve months. Finally, MCGM is required to file a compliance report before the High Court every six months for a period of three years, and the High Court is requested to ensure compliance with these directions. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the State Government from implementing additional measures for environmental quality improvement in the Navi Mumbai area, in harmony with the issued directions.
Case Details:
Case Title: Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. versus Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 792 Civil Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 29048 / 2018) Date of Judgment: May 30, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Surya Kant, and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Download The Judgement Here