MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.versusPANKAJ BABULAL KOTECHA & ORS.

                  [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 / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

     Surya Kant, J.

     Leave granted.
2.   The fulcrum of the present controversy centres around the
     redevelopment of a theme park undertaken by the Municipal
     Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on a plot bearing CTS
     No. 417, situated at Khajuria Tank Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai
     (Subject Property). This redevelopment allegedly resulted in the
     obliteration of a lake that had existed at the premises for approximately
     100 years.
3.   This issue was assailed before the High Court of Bombay (High
     Court) vide a Writ Petition instituted in public interest, wherein by way
     of its judgement dated 03.08.2018, the High Court allowed the same
     and directed Respondent Nos. 2-8 herein (State Government) to
     assume possession of the Subject Property, demolish the construction
     in question and restore the lake claimed to have existed prior to the
     subject development (Impugned Judgement).

     A.    Facts
4.   In order to shed light on the circumstances leading up to the passing
     of the Impugned Judgement, we deem it appropriate to briefly set
     out the factual narration herewith:
     4.1. A water body known as the Khajuria Lake used to be situated
          in the same vicinity as the Subject Property. This water body,
          which had existed for over 100 years, allegedly also served
790                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


            as a site for Ganesh idol immersion during festivals. As per
            the revenue record, the Subject Property was enlisted as
            belonging to the State Government through the Collector,
            Mumbai Suburban District.
       4.2. It appears that in 2008, as part of a directive from the Additional
            Municipal Commissioner (City) to develop Theme Gardens in
            various wards within the city of Mumbai and other ancillary areas,
            MCGM selected the Subject Property for development. MCGM
            claimed that the lake was in an unused and bad condition, so
            much so that it was treated as a garbage disposal area, thereby
            prompting it to be identified for beautification and conversion
            into a recreational space.
       4.3. MCGM in furtherance of this objective, floated a tender on
            08.02.2008 for the development and maintenance of gardens,
            recreation grounds, and other municipal plots. Following the
            tender process, M/s. Techno Trade Impex India Pvt. Ltd. was
            appointed as the contractor on 10.04.2008. The project thereafter
            received formal approval from the Standing Committee of MCGM
            vide SCR No. 729, for the execution of beautification work upon
            the Subject Property, on 24.08.2009.
       4.4. Subsequently, MCGM appointed an architect to prepare detailed
            plans and estimates for the proposed beautification of the
            Subject Property. Accordingly, a budget of Rs. 5 crores came
            to be allocated by MCGM in the fiscal year of 2008-09.
       4.5. However, as already observed, given that the Subject Property
            belonged to the Collector and not MCGM, the latter submitted
            an application for a No Objection Certificate to the Collector on
            30.06.2009 seeking permission for the project. Notwithstanding
            the pendency of these requests, the beautification work
            proceeded, and the transformed recreational space comprising
            the planned green cover, musical water fountain, and recreational
            amenities was completed and inaugurated for public use in
            December 2011. On 23.05.2012, MCGM sent another letter
            to the Collector for transfer of the property, which remained
            unanswered.
       4.6. Thereafter, the publication of a news report in the Times of India
            daily newspaper on 06.09.2012 concerning the alleged filling
            up of Khajuria Lake spurred action in Respondent No. 1, who
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                           791

           Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v.
                    Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors.

           being a public-spirited individual, filed a Writ Petition before
           the High Court on 29.11.2012. The petition sought demolition
           of the construction undertaken by MCGM and restoration of
           the lake to its pristine condition, highlighting that this century-
           old water body served as a habitat for various types of rare
           fish and tortoises, attracted different types of birds, and was
           surrounded by mangroves—all of which were decimated during
           the development of the project.
     4.7. Significantly, during the pendency of the petition, the Collector
          issued post facto sanction dated 10.02.2014 approving the
          project, viz. the beautification of Khajuria pond, and transferring
          the Subject Property to MCGM.
     4.8. As already elucidated, the High Court, vide the Impugned
          Judgment dated 03.08.2018, allowed the Writ Petition. Being
          aggrieved, MCGM has preferred the instant appeal.
     4.9. Notably, during the pendency of the instant appeal, this Court,
          vide order dated 16.11.2018, directed status quo, thereby staying
          the implementation of the Impugned Judgment. Consequently,
          the recreational park continues to exist and function in its
          present form.

     B.    Contentions on behalf of the Appellants
5.   Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for MCGM,
     vehemently contested the High Court’s characterization of the Subject
     Property as a lake requiring restoration. He submitted that the
     Impugned Judgment fundamentally misapprehended the nature of the
     land by disregarding that the Subject Property was already reserved
     as Recreation Ground or ‘R.G.’ in the sanctioned Development Plan
     of 1991. It was urged that this reservation was made following due
     statutory process, including inviting public objections and suggestions
     through the Gazette Notification dated 13.04.1984, and no objections
     were ever raised by any party, including the Respondent. It was further
     emphasized that such ‘R.G.’ designation, read in conjunction with
     MCGM’s statutory mandate to develop recreational spaces, provided
     sufficient legal foundation for the beautification initiative sought to be
     undertaken, which has resulted in the creation of substantial green
     cover at the Subject Property.
792                                                          [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


6.     Additionally, our attention was drawn to the documented usage
       pattern of the Subject Property, highlighting that it had consistently
       hosted community events, including Ganesh festival celebrations
       with proper administrative permissions— circumstances incompatible
       with the existence of a natural lake as alleged by Respondent No.
       1. It was detailed as to how MCGM had transformed what was
       formerly a degraded area used as a garbage dumping ground, into
       a beneficial public amenity featuring approximately 200 trees, a
       musical fountain, and recreational facilities, presently serving the
       local community without charge. He insisted that, far from constituting
       illegal construction, the project represents a responsible exercise
       of MCGM to enhance urban recreational infrastructure, thereby
       promoting rather than diminishing public welfare in accordance with
       the Subject Property’s designated purpose.

       C.   Contentions on behalf of Respondent No.1
7.     Per contra, Mr. Kunal Cheema, Learned Counsel for Respondent
       No. 1, strenuously opposed the appeal on multiple grounds. He
       commenced his submissions by challenging the very premise
       of the development, asserting that the documentary evidence
       overwhelmingly established the existence of a functional water body
       at the Subject Property. Relying on MCGM’s own correspondence,
       particularly its letter dated 30.06.2009 seeking permission to convert
       the ‘Khajuria Talao to that of a municipal garden’, it was contended
       that such language constituted an unequivocal admission that negated
       any subsequent attempt to deny the lake’s existence. It was further
       argued that the beautification project represented nothing short of
       ecological destruction, resulting in the obliteration of a century-old
       lake that supported various aquatic species and attracted diverse
       birdlife to its surrounding mangroves.
8.     On the aspect of post facto sanction of 2014, the Learned Counsel
       characterized it as a legally impermissible attempt to retrospectively
       legitimize an unauthorized act. It was assailed that this sanction,
       granted during the pendency of litigation and years after the
       construction’s completion, suffered from inherent contradictions—
       purporting to approve beautification while simultaneously prohibiting
       the very change in land use that had already been effected. In
       conclusion, Learned Counsel submitted that the principles of
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          793

           Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v.
                    Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors.

     environmental protection and the public trust doctrine mandated the
     restoration of the natural water body, as rightly held by the High Court.

     D.    Analysis
9.   Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of the
     material on record, we are of the considered view that the primary
     question in the instant appeal pertains to 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. More specifically, the question of
     achieving a judicious balance between environmental conservation
     and development for public welfare constitutes the primary issue
     before us. That being said, at the very outset, we deem it pertinent to
     delineate the reasoning that informed the High Court’s determination
     in the matter.
10. Upon perusal of the Impugned Judgement, it becomes patently
    clear that the High Court’s reasoning rested primarily on the public
    trust doctrine, whereby it held that the State could not permit the
    destruction of natural water bodies under any circumstances.
    Furthermore, it found the post facto sanction legally ineffective, as
    it attempted to retrospectively validate an unauthorized act while
    simultaneously prohibiting the very land use change that had already
    occurred. Consequently, invoking Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the
    Constitution, the High Court concluded that the preservation of water
    bodies constitutes an absolute constitutional mandate that invariably
    supersedes developmental considerations or temporal factors.
11. In this light, we must acknowledge that albeit the High Court’s views
    were well-intentioned and prima facie the correct interpretation of
    settled notions such as the public trust doctrine, they nonetheless
    warrant reconsideration through the prism of practical realities and
    evolved ground conditions. This Court has consistently propounded
    that environmental jurisprudence must evolve contextually, taking into
    account both ecological imperatives and developmental exigencies.
    Indeed, there cannot be a simplistic binary choice between a park
    or a pond, as each serves distinct ecological and social functions
    contingent upon specific circumstances, geographical location, and
    evolving usage patterns.
794                                                             [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


12. To put it simplistically, the public trust doctrine establishes that
    certain environmental resources are held in trust by the State for the
    unimpeded enjoyment of the public and for posterity. Although the
    doctrine imposes a legal obligation upon governmental authorities to
    protect these resources for public benefit and ecological sustainability,
    extending to public lands, parks, forests, water bodies, wetlands, and
    other areas acquired by the State, its application must necessarily be
    calibrated according to the factual matrix and contemporary public
    needs. The doctrine, thus, does not operate in isolation but must
    be harmonized with the objectives of sustainable development and
    evolving public welfare priorities.
13. When juxtaposed with the facts at hand, the instant case presents a
    unique situation where one public amenity has been transformed into
    another that continues to serve the community unconditionally. Unlike
    scenarios involving the diversion of public resources for exclusive
    private benefit, we must examine whether this particular transformation
    necessarily violates the trust obligation, considering three critical factors:
    (i) the prior condition of the water body; (ii) the current ecological value
    of the park; and (iii) the feasibility of remedial measures.
14. With respect to the first factor, while the material on record
    acknowledges the historical existence of a water body at the Subject
    Property, it does not conclusively establish that this water body
    remained a functional pond by the relevant time. The affidavits filed
    by officials of MCGM categorically aver that when work for the project
    commenced in 2009, the Subject Property existed in an abandoned
    and dilapidated state, having deteriorated into a garbage dumping
    ground that had completely lost its original character as a water
    body. Pertinently, nothing has been pleaded or placed on record to
    demonstrate that the Subject Property was ever a functional pond
    with significant water content, possessed any natural catchment area
    to draw fresh water, or performed meaningful ecological functions
    beyond occasional ceremonial usage, thereby raising fundamental
    questions about its viability as a sustainable aquatic ecosystem
    capable of supporting flora and fauna.
15. As regards the current ecological value, the photographic evidence
    placed before us vividly illustrates the Subject Property as a verdant,
    well-maintained urban oasis replete with numerous mature trees
    and recreational facilities actively utilized by the community across
    all demographic segments. It bears particular emphasis that we
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          795

           Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v.
                    Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors.

     are adjudicating this appeal in 2025, nearly fifteen years after the
     park became functional. During this extended temporal span, an
     entire generation of children has grown up with this green space
     as an integral component of their daily existence, whilst the trees
     planted during the initial beautification have themselves matured
     into substantial specimens that now contribute significantly to the
     local ecosystem. The park serves as a vital recreational nucleus
     for children, offering safe spaces for play and physical activity; for
     senior citizens, providing dedicated areas for walking and social
     interaction; and for families, creating opportunities for community
     engagement and leisure.
16. The recreational park presently delivers substantial public benefits
    that cannot be overlooked. It provides an essential green space in
    an increasingly concretized urban environment, with trees and other
    foliage contributing significantly to oxygen generation, air purification,
    and microclimate regulation. The ornamental water features, such
    as the fountain, though admittedly not equivalent to a natural water
    body, nonetheless contribute to biodiversity.
17. Be that as it may, the implementation of the High Court’s direction
    at this juncture would engender consequences that contravene the
    very environmental principles it seeks to uphold. The demolition
    would necessitate the removal of numerous trees, causing immediate
    environmental degradation requiring decades to remediate.
    Additionally, the expenditure of approximately Rs. 5 crores of public
    funds would be rendered nugatory, with further substantial public
    expenditure required for the proposed restoration. Such an outcome
    would create a paradox wherein environmental restoration results in
    greater ecological harm than the original transformation—a classic
    case of counterproductive remedial intervention. Most importantly,
    given the absence of any natural catchment area as aforenoted, we
    are constrained to observe that even if a pond were to be recreated,
    its sustainability and maintenance would remain highly questionable,
    with the distinct possibility of such stagnant water body becoming
    health hazards for the local populace, particularly during the monsoon
    seasons when such properties are prone to becoming breeding
    grounds for disease-carrying vectors.
18. Beyond these substantive aspects, the Collector’s post facto sanction
    of 2014 merits separate consideration. The High Court found this
    sanction to be procedurally deficient and contradictory—attempting to
796                                                           [2025] 5 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       validate an unauthorized construction yet simultaneously prohibiting
       the very land use change that had occurred. In this specific context, we
       observe that the larger question for adjudication before us transcends
       the validity of this belated approval. Even assuming the sanction’s
       invalidity, the fundamental issue remains whether restoration is
       feasible or desirable, given the passage of considerable time and
       the establishment of a functioning public amenity. The legal status
       of the 2014 sanction, therefore, though relevant to the question
       of initial authorization, cannot be determinative of the appropriate
       remedy at this stage. More significantly, even if there existed some
       irregularity or perceived illegality in the post facto sanction, such
       concerns have been reasonably addressed and balanced by the
       specific rider imposed therein restricting any change in land use. The
       sanction, as it stands, thus ensures that the Subject Property shall
       remain dedicated exclusively to recreational purposes in perpetuity.
       This rider provides the necessary legal safeguard and permanency
       to guarantee that the land may not be diverted for any other purpose,
       commercial or otherwise.
19. As a final consideration, the delay in seeking judicial intervention
    significantly undermines the foundation of the High Court’s impugned
    decision. The beautification project commenced in 2008 and reached
    completion by 2011, with the park becoming fully operational for
    public use. However, the petition was instituted before the High
    Court towards the tail end of 2012—nearly five years after the
    project’s commencement and well after its completion. It is well-
    settled that environmental grievances must be raised promptly when
    alleged violations commence, not after transformative changes
    have materialized and become entrenched. This considerable delay
    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, therefore,
    would be served by undoing what time and usage have legitimized
    through community acceptance and reliance.
20. For the foregoing reasons, we are constrained to hold that the
    High Court’s direction to restore the Subject Property to its original
    condition as a pond, though made with laudable intentions, fails to
    account for the transformed reality and the substantial public benefit
    derived from the current recreational space.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.                                                          797

              Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. v.
                       Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors.

     E.      Conclusion and directions
21. In view thereof, we allow the instant appeal and set aside the
    Impugned Judgment passed by the High Court. Consequently, to
    ensure ecological balance within the larger urban ecosystem and
    preserve the existing park, we direct MCGM to:
     i.      Maintain and preserve the existing park in perpetuity as a
             green space exclusively for public use without any predominant
             commercial activity;
     ii.     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;
     iii.    Undertake comprehensive ecological restoration of deteriorated
             water bodies within the municipal jurisdiction within a period of
             twelve months; and
     iv.     File a compliance report before the High Court every six months
             for a period of three years. We request the High Court to see
             that the directions issued hereinabove are complied with in
             true letter and spirit.
22. The Government, being entrusted with the welfare of public spaces
    and environmental resources, bears the inherent responsibility
    to pursue sustainable urban development practices that balance
    infrastructural needs with ecological preservation. We thus clarify that
    this order shall not preclude the State Government from implementing
    any other additional measures for the overall improvement of
    environmental quality in the Navi Mumbai area in harmony with the
    directions issued hereinabove.
23. Ordered accordingly, Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
    of in the above terms.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey