Alternative Remedy Rule Is One of Discretion, Not Compulsion; High Courts Can Intervene to Prevent Injustice: Supreme Court - 2025-07-07

Forcing Owners to File Suit After 84 Years of State Occupation is 'Adding Insult to Injury': Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts should exercise their writ jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice, even when an alternative remedy exists, emphasizing that the rule of exclusion is one of discretion, not compulsion. In a significant decision, the Court ordered the Maharashtra Police Department to vacate two Mumbai flats they had occupied since 1940, ending an 84-year-long ordeal for the property owners.

The bench set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had dismissed the owners' plea and relegated them to filing a civil suit. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, stating that forcing the appellants into protracted litigation after such a long period would be "like adding insult to the injury."

Case Background: An 84-Year Occupation

The case centered on two flats in the 'Amar Bhavan' building at Opera House, Mumbai. In 1940, the owners' predecessors allowed the Police Department to occupy the flats to house its officers. The arrangement was informal, with no written lease or requisition order. For decades, a nominal monthly amount was paid, which stopped entirely in 2008.

After their requests for the return of the property were ignored, the owners filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court in 2009.

Arguments Before the Courts

Petitioners' Arguments: The owners contended that the property was given for temporary use and that its continued occupation for 84 years was unlawful. They argued that the state cannot hold private property indefinitely. They cited Supreme Court precedents where possession of requisitioned properties was ordered to be returned after a long lapse of time.

State's Arguments: The State of Maharashtra argued that since there was no formal requisition order, the occupation was permissive, akin to a tenancy. They claimed the dispute was a landlord-tenant matter that should be adjudicated in a civil court under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, not in a writ petition.

The High Court's Reluctance and the Supreme Court's Intervention

The Bombay High Court sided with the State, finding that the disputed nature of the possession made it unsuitable for adjudication under its writ jurisdiction. It dismissed the petition, directing the owners to pursue the "appropriate remedy as available in law."

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. It noted the State's failure to respond to reasonable settlement proposals, which included paying market rent, purchasing the property, or vacating it. The Court expressed its dismay at the State's conduct, particularly the non-payment of even the paltry rent for nearly 18 years.

The Supreme Court's Rationale: Justice Over Technicality

The Supreme Court delivered a strong rebuke to the High Court's hesitant approach, providing crucial guidance on the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

> "To ask the appellants to file a suit and recover the possession would be like adding insult to the injury. At this point of time, if the appellants are asked to institute a suit, we wonder how many years it would take by the time the litigation would come to an end if at all it reaches upto the highest Court of the country," the bench observed.

The Court underscored a vital constitutional principle:

> "The 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 the High Court may be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction inspite of availability of an alternative remedy... 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."

The Court highlighted that the High Court should have considered the unique historical context and the sheer length of the occupation (84 years) instead of getting "confused on the aspect of nature of possession."

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. It ordered the State of Maharashtra to: 1. Hand over vacant and peaceful possession of both flats to the owners within four months. 2. Pay all rent arrears from 2008 until the date of handing over possession. 3. Submit an undertaking from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Nitin Pawar , guaranteeing compliance with the order.

The judgment brings long-awaited relief to the property owners and serves as a powerful reminder to the High Courts to wield their constitutional powers to remedy clear and prolonged injustice.