The case of Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Another v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others before the Bombay High Court, culminating in the final judgment of 3rd March 2025, deals with a significant legal dispute regarding the possession of two flats situated in South Bombay. These flats, owned by the appellants, have been occupied by the Maharashtra Police Department since 1940, without a formal written lease or requisition. Over the years, the lack of written documentation surrounding the occupation has led to a protracted legal battle, with the appellants seeking the return of their property.

The appellants’ writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, sought a declaration that the occupation of the flats by the Police Department was unlawful. The two flats, located in ‘Amar Bhavan’ on A.R. Rangekar Marg, Mumbai, were handed over by the petitioners' predecessors to the Police Department in 1940, following a verbal agreement to provide housing for police officers. Despite some payments being made by the Police Department until 2007, no formal lease agreement or requisition order was ever executed.

Over time, the petitioners raised concerns about the non-payment of rent, and by 2008, payments had ceased altogether. The petitioners' grievance was that, despite the long-standing occupation of the flats by the Police Department, they were now in need of the premises and sought their return.

In its initial judgment dated 30th April 2024, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioners could not prove that the flats were requisitioned under the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948, and that the nature of the occupation was permissive rather than based on a formal requisition order. The Court further concluded that, due to the absence of a written requisition, the petitioners could not claim that their fundamental rights had been violated.

Moreover, the High Court opined that since no formal requisition existed, the petitioners should seek an alternative remedy under the Rent Control Act, 1999, instead of filing a writ petition. The Court ruled that the petitioners could not rely on precedents where possession had been handed back based on written agreements or consent orders. In light of these factors, the writ petition was rejected, with the Court discharging the rule without granting any relief to the petitioners.

Dissatisfied with the High Court's dismissal, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court, highlighting that the police had been in occupation of the flats for over 80 years, and for much of that time, no rent had been paid. The Supreme Court, after hearing the arguments, intervened in the matter, noting that the High Court had failed to exercise its writ jurisdiction properly despite the long-standing injustice faced by the petitioners.

In a crucial development, the Supreme Court ordered that the flats be returned to the petitioners within four months. The Court also directed that the rent arrears for the period from 2008 onwards, when payments had ceased, be calculated and paid to the appellants. The Court emphasized that the Police Department should not retain possession indefinitely without a formal arrangement or proper payment of rent.

Throughout the proceedings, the Supreme Court encouraged the parties to reach a settlement. In its orders dated 28th January 2025 and 3rd March 2025, the Court urged the Police Department to negotiate an equitable solution with the appellants, including the possibility of entering into a formal lease agreement with rent based on the current market value. However, despite the appellants' reasonable proposals—such as retaining the property by paying market rent, outright purchasing it, or vacating the premises—the State showed no significant response.

In light of the lack of progress in settlement talks, the Supreme Court finally decided to resolve the dispute, overturning the High Court’s decision. The Court granted the appellants four months to reclaim possession of the flats and mandated the Police Department to pay any arrears accumulated since 2008. Furthermore, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Nitin Pawar, was personally present in court and was required to file an affidavit, ensuring the compliance of the Court’s order.

The Supreme Court's final ruling reflects its broader concern for delivering justice in cases of prolonged unlawful occupation, particularly when it involves the state as a party. The Court criticized the High Court's reluctance to exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the clear injustice suffered by the petitioners. It pointed out that the availability of an alternative remedy, such as filing a suit, should not be seen as an obstacle when doing so would lead to further delay and injustice.

The Court noted the historical context of the case—particularly that the flats had been handed over to the Police Department in the tumultuous period of 1940, during British rule. Over the 84 years of occupation, the Police Department had failed to formalize the terms of occupation, which compounded the issue further. The Court stressed that, at this point, asking the appellants to file a lawsuit would be unjust and would result in unnecessary delays.

This case serves as an important reminder of the challenges faced by property owners when dealing with long-standing governmental occupation of their property, especially when formal agreements are not in place. It also highlights the importance of judicial discretion in cases where alternative remedies are available but would result in injustice due to the prolonged nature of the dispute.

The Supreme Court's decision to intervene in this case and grant the appellants relief underscores the Court's commitment to protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that legal processes are not used to perpetuate injustice. By directing the Police Department to vacate the premises and settle the arrears of rent, the Court has provided a much-needed resolution to a case that had remained unresolved for over eight decades.