LexNEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 616 : 2025 INSC 484 Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5098 of 2025) 08 April 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the order passed by the High Court, rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellants u/Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the possession of property given for temporary occupation to police officials in 1940. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Writ jurisdiction – Exercise of, when alternative remedy available – Writ petition by the appellant seeking for possession of their two flats which were permitted to be temporarily occupied by the police department at their request to meet the requirement of housing police officers in the year 1940 – High Court rejected the petition holding that it was not inclined to exercise jurisdiction u/Art.226 because there was no written order of requisition – Correctness: Held: High Court should have readily exercised its writ jurisdiction – Constitutional powers vested in High Court or Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned – Injustice, whenever and wherever it takes place, should be struck down as an anathema to the rule of law and the provisions of the Constitution – High Court was hesitant to exercise its writ jurisdiction as it got confused on the aspect of nature of possession – High Court found the possession to be permissive in nature and thought fit to relegate the appellants to avail alternative remedy of filing a suit – High Court should have kept in mind that the year was 1940 when the country was ruled by Britishers and was fighting hard to seek independence – At that time, department might have persuaded the appellants/predecessors in title to part [2025] 5 S.C.R. 617 Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. with the possession of two flats for Police Department – However, it has been 84 years that the Police Department was in occupation and for past eighteen years even rent was not paid – If the appellants are asked to institute a suit would be like adding insult to the injury – Rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion – There can be many contingencies in which High Court may be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction inspite of availability of an alternative remedy – Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court set aside – Respondents to handover vacant and peaceful possession of both the flats to the appellants along with the arrears of rent. [Paras 6, 8-12] List of Acts Constitution of India; Right to Information Act, 2005; Maharashtra Land Requisition Act, 1948; Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 List of Keywords Writ Petition; Exclusion of writ jurisdiction; Permissive possession; Recovery of possession; Housing police officials; Temporary occupation; Order of requisition; Possession; Constitutional powers; Anathema to rule of law; Writ jurisdiction; Availability of alternative remedy; Police department; Requirement of housing police officers. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5098 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 2135 of 2009 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Ms. Aishwarya Kantawala, Ms. Rebecca Mishra. Advs. for the Respondents: Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., Shreyas Lalit, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey. 618 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 30th April, 2024 in Writ Petition No.2135 of 2009 by which the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein against the State of Maharashtra and Others came to be rejected. The impugned judgment dated 30th April, 2024 reads thus:- 1. In this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a declaration that the action on the part of the respondents in not releasing and thereafter restoring the possession of Flat Nos.11 and 12 on the 3rd floor of the building named ‘Amar Bhavan’, A.R. Rangekar Marg, Opera House, Mumbai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.