LexMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. versus PANKAJ BABULAL KOTECHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 787 : 2025 INSC 792 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7272 of 2025) 30 May 2025 [Surya Kant* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration 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. Headnotes† Environmental Matters – Environmental conservation and development for public welfare – Balance between – Redevelopment of a theme park on the subject property by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) – Writ petition filed alleging that the said redevelopment resulted in the obliteration of the 100 years old Khajuria lake which existed there; demolition of the park and restoration of the lake sought – Allowed by High Court – Interference with: Held: Though, the material shows the historical existence of a water body at the subject property, there is nothing to show that it remained a functional pond at the relevant time – Presently, the park is a well-maintained urban oasis with numerous mature trees and recreational facilities actively utilized by the community – Its demolition would necessitate the removal of trees causing environmental degradation requiring decades to remediate with substantial public expenditure required for the proposed restoration – Moreover, there was a considerable delay in seeking judicial intervention as the writ petition was filed before the High Court nearly five years after the project’s commencement, which delay has created an irreversible fait accompli – Impugned judgment set aside – MCGM to maintain and preserve the existing park in perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use without any predominant commercial activity – Expert Committee to be constituted within three months to explore the feasibility of * Author 788 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports developing an alternative water body in nearby areas to compensate for the ecological functions of the original water body – Further directions issued. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 19] Environmental Matters – Judicial intervention – Delay – Effect – Redevelopment of a recreational park on the subject property allegedly resulted in the obliteration of a 100 years old lake – Writ petition filed nearly five years after the project’s commencement seeking demolition of the park and restoration of the lake, allowed by High Court: Held: Environmental grievances must be raised promptly when alleged violations commence, not after transformative changes have materialized and become entrenched – The considerable delay in the present case has created an irreversible fait accompli wherein substantial public resources have been expended, and a thriving recreational facility has become integral to community life – No public purpose would be served by undoing what time and usage have legitimized through community acceptance and reliance. [Para 19] Environmental Law – Public trust doctrine – Operation – Discussed. [Para 12] List of Keywords Khajuria Lake; Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM); Recreational park; Redevelopment of a theme park; Water body; Alleged historical water body; Restoration of water body; Lake; Pond; Restoration of lake; Restoration of Pond; 100 years old lake; Century-old water body; Demolition of the park; Functional pond; Recreational facilities; Environmental degradation; Green space; Beautification work; Public interest; Post-facto sanction; Environmental conservation; Development for public welfare; Public trust doctrine; Environmental jurisprudence; Sustainable development; Change in land use; Delay in seeking judicial intervention; Ecological balance; Fait accompli. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7272 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in PIL No. 6 of 2013 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 789 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v. Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Sudarsh Menon, Ms. Nishi Sangtani, Mrs. Nimisha S Menon. Advs. for the Respondents: Kunal Cheema, Shubham Chandankhede, Raghav Deshpande, Ms. Kirti, Ms. Saloni Shukla, Varad Kilor, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande. Judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.