The court emphasized balancing environmental conservation with public welfare, affirming that transformed public amenities can coexist with ecological mandates under the public trust doctrine.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. 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 judgment 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 Judgment).

(A) FACTS

4. In order to shed light on the circumstances leading up to the passing of the Impugned Judgment, 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 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 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