SC Picks Park Over Lake in Legally Groundbreaking Decision.

On May 30, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant ruling in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. versus Pankaj Babulal Kotecha & Ors. The ruling reversed a decision made by the Bombay High Court that had mandated the demolition of a municipal garden constructed over the historic lake, establishing a benchmark for how courts balance environmental conservation with changing urban circumstances and the needs of the public.

Facts:

The case revolves around a lake situated near Khajuria Tank Road in Kandivali (West), Mumbai.

In 2008, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) decided to establish themed gardens throughout Mumbai and its surrounding regions.

The lake was in proximity to one of these proposed garden projects, but it belonged to the collector (respondent).

In 2009, the MCGM sought a no-objection certificate from the collector for approval, but received no response.

Without waiting for further communication, they began the construction work.

After completing the project, they reached out to the collector again in 2012 to request the property transfer but got no reply.

In September 2012, the collector became aware of the situation through a newspaper article and quickly filed a writ petition in the high court.

However, during the ongoing legal proceedings, the collector retroactively approved the development project and assigned the property to the municipal corporation.

The high court, citing the public trust doctrine and invoking Articles 48A (Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wild life) and 51A(g) (which mandates the protection and enhancement of the natural environment, including forests, lakes, and rivers, as well as compassion for living creatures) of the Constitution, ruled against the MCGM and ordered for demolishment of the garden.

Arguments

Appellants:

The appellants (MCGM) contended that the land was designated as a recreational area according to the sanctioned development plan of 1991.

This designation was communicated through a gazette notification that also invited public objections.

However, no objections were submitted, including those from the respondent.

Furthermore, MCGM argued that its legal obligation to create recreational spaces established a strong legal basis for the project.

Additionally, the lake had previously been filled with garbage.

The municipality transformed the area into a garden featuring more than 200 trees, a musical fountain, and recreational facilities.

Respondents:

The lake had existed for a century. Referring to the project as ‘beautification’ overlooked its significance. It served as a habitat for numerous aquatic organisms and species.

In response to the subsequent approval, the counsel contended that it was an unlawful effort to validate an illicit action retroactively.

Judgement:

Environmental conservation and development for public welfare.

The court acknowledged that the high court’s perspectives are well-intended and, at first glance, represent an accurate interpretation of established principles.

However, the court emphasized that these perspectives require a practical evaluation of the current realities and ground conditions.

The court annulled the high court’s ruling and permitted the garden to continue operating.

The court stated that the public property had simply been redeveloped into another area with improved conditions.

Photographic evidence showed that the pond was not in good shape, making it difficult for any aquatic life to thrive.

Now, the site is home to over 200 trees and is in a much-improved state.

The public can utilize the area more effectively than they could have with the pond.

Considering these factors, the high court’s decision was overturned.

Regarding the post-facto sanction, the court observed that the environmental issues involved go beyond the legal formalities of this case.

As a result, no remedy is available at this stage.

Legal questions

The public trust doctrine maintains that specific environmental resources—like public lands, parks, forests, bodies of water, and wetlands—are overseen by the State as a trustee.

These resources need to be protected for two primary purposes:

Public benefit: Ensuring free access and enjoyment for present generations.

Ecological sustainability: Maintaining them for the benefit of future generations.

The origins of the public trust doctrine can be traced back to ancient Roman times. Roman Emperor Justinian stated that “the air, water, and sea belong to the public and can be accessed by anyone through natural law.”

In India, the doctrine was first used in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997).

In this case, the Court ruled that the State acts as a trustee for all natural resources, including rivers, forests, and lakes, and must protect them for public usage and enjoyment.

In this instance, the government had leased ecologically sensitive land to a private motel. The Court concluded that this decision violated the public trust principles.

Corram:

Justice Surya Kant

Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh