30 May 2025 Public Interest Litigation >> Constitution & Law Procedure  

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a Bombay High Court judgment of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Others v/s Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Others., that mandated the demolition of a recreational theme park in Kandivali (West), Mumbai, and the restoration of an alleged century-old lake. The apex court, in its recent ruling, opted for a pragmatic approach, emphasizing current public utility and environmental realities over a strict interpretation of historical land use.

The case centered on a plot of land, CTS No. 417, which the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) redeveloped into a theme park. This development, completed and inaugurated in December 2011, allegedly led to the "obliteration" of the Khajuria Lake, a water body reportedly used for Ganesh idol immersion.

The controversy began when a public-spirited individual, Respondent No. 1, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2012, asserting that the development constituted "ecological destruction" of a vital aquatic ecosystem. The Bombay High Court, in its judgment dated August 3, 2018, sided with the petitioner, directing the State Government to take possession of the property, demolish the construction, and restore the lake.

MCGM, through its Senior Counsel Mr. Dhruv Mehta, appealed the High Court's decision, arguing that the Subject Property was already designated as a "Recreation Ground" (R.G.) in the sanctioned Development Plan of 1991, a designation made after due public process. Mehta contended that the land had deteriorated into a "garbage dumping ground" and the beautification project, which included planting approximately 200 trees, a musical fountain, and recreational facilities, was a responsible exercise to enhance urban infrastructure.

Conversely, Mr. Kunal Cheema, counsel for Respondent No. 1, strongly opposed the appeal, citing MCGM's own correspondence from 2009, which referred to "Khajuria Talao" (lake) and sought permission to convert it into a municipal garden, as an admission of the lake's existence. Cheema also challenged the Collector's post-facto sanction of 2014, granted during the litigation, as an impermissible attempt to legitimize an unauthorized act retrospectively.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the High Court's "well-intentioned" reliance on the Public Trust Doctrine, emphasized that environmental jurisprudence must consider "practical realities and evolved ground conditions." The Court noted that the doctrine, while obligating the State to protect environmental resources, must be "harmonized with the objectives of sustainable development and evolving public welfare priorities."

Crucially, the Court's analysis focused on three factors: the prior condition of the water body, the current ecological value of the park, and the feasibility of remedial measures. The Supreme Court found that there was no conclusive evidence that the water body remained a "functional pond" by 2009, and MCGM's affidavits stated it had become an "abandoned and dilapidated state," used for "garbage dumping."

The Court further highlighted the "substantial public benefits" derived from the existing recreational park, noting its active utilization by the community for nearly fifteen years. The presence of mature trees contributing to oxygen generation and air purification was also recognized.

Implementing the High Court's demolition order, the Supreme Court stated, "would engender consequences that contravene the very environmental principles it seeks to uphold," due to the removal of numerous trees and the rendering of public funds already expended. The Court also expressed doubts about the sustainability of a recreated pond without a natural catchment area, raising concerns about potential health hazards.

Regarding the post-facto sanction, the Court stated its validity was "not determinative of the appropriate remedy at this stage," particularly given the "passage of considerable time and the establishment of a functioning public amenity." The Court also found that the delay in seeking judicial intervention, nearly five years after the project's commencement and well after its completion, significantly undermined the High Court's decision.

In its final order, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed MCGM to:

• Maintain and preserve the existing park in perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use without any predominant commercial activity.
• 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.
• Undertake comprehensive ecological restoration of deteriorated water bodies within the municipal jurisdiction within a period of twelve months.
• File a compliance report before the High Court every six months for a period of three years.