supreme court give judgement over illegal encroachment over 2 public flats by police officials in mumbai ann | SC ने 84 साल के बाद दिया न्याय, महाराष्ट्र सरकार से कहा

Supreme Court Judgement: Strongly condemning the strong confirmation and government apathy of the rights of the citizens, the Supreme Court of India has ordered the Maharashtra State Government to vacate two residential flats in South Mumbai, which has been in the police for eight decades without any formal agreement or legal approval.

This historic decision came in the case called Neha Chandrakant Shroff and other vs. Maharashtra state and others, in which the 2024 Bombay High Court’s decision was overturned, in which the appellars’ petition was rejected and they were advised to adopt civil measures.

The Supreme Court’s decision not only provided a long -rejected relief to the petitioners, but also a strong message about the constitutional duties of the judiciary to misuse of the public authority and the rights of the citizens.

It is noteworthy that the dispute focuses on flat numbers 11 and 12, one of the most prominent and expensive residential areas of Mumbai, AR of Opera House. Rangkekar is located on the third floor of “Amar Bhavan”. In the year 1940, during the British rule, the father-in-law of the then owner of flats was allowed to stay temporarily to meet the emergency housing requirements during the freedom disturbed period of the father-in-law.

No process was done in writing

The important thing in this is that there was no written lease, license or recording order execution. Only a nominal amount was paid- by ​​2007, Rs 611 per month per month, which was completely closed in 2008. The family repeatedly requested to return the flat for their personal use and sent several legal notices in early 1997. However, the state neither vacated the flats nor made any legal arrangements.

In 2009, the family turned to the High Court

In 2009, the family eventually demanded to return its assets in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners represented by senior advocate Dr. Sujay Kantwala cited several decisions of the Supreme Court to support their arguments that continuous occupation from the state was illegal and a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 300A.

Despite the severity and olderness of the case, the Bombay High Court on April 30, 2024 dismissed the writ petition, saying that the case needs to determine the inappropriate facts for the writ jurisdiction and advised the petitioners to file a civil lawsuit. This is a process in which decades could take more time.

SC Bombay Highcart’s decision rejected

On April 8, 2025, a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan rejected the High Court’s decision and clearly admitted that the High Court made a mistake by refusing to use writ jurisdiction in this extraordinary case.

The court remarked, “The appellants would be like sprinkling salt on the injury.” “How many years will it take to end the litigation? These are the harsh facts that the High Court should keep in mind in today’s time.”

The court criticized the narrow interpretation of the High Court of “Permissive Position”, given that it failed to take into account exceptional circumstances and time since 1940. It emphasized that judicial discretion should be used relevant, especially when the state is seen occupying private property without any legal rights for more than 84 years.

Two families of police officers were living in flat

During the hearing, the Supreme Court found that the flats were not being used even for official purposes. Instead, two families of police officers had been living there for years – effectively enjoying major real estate in South Mumbai at Rs 150 per sq ft. 700 per month, which has not been repaid for the last 17 years.

The court made a sharp comment, saying, “Look at the conduct of the department. The fare has not been paid for the last 18 years,”. “The department can easily go to another place and allow the petitioners to use their property.”

The court also said that no lease deed was present and the information received under the RTI Act confirmed the absence of any written demand order or contract agreement. Despite being given several opportunities to settle the case in a cordial manner, the state refused to take action.

No meaningful response received by the state, SC Took final decision

Earlier this year, the court passed two interim orders (dated 28 January and March 3, 2025), urging the state to choose one of the three appropriate options proposed by the petitioners, maintaining flats by paying the current market rent; Buy flats completely; Empty the campus. On receiving no meaningful response from the state, the court proceeded to pass the final order.

The Supreme Court said in its judgment, “The three proposals mentioned in our order of 03.03.2025, there is no reaction name from the defendants on them. In such circumstances we do not need to listen to the parties on any other issue. We reject the disputed petition.”

The court further said, “Accepting the decision passed by the High Court and accepting the original writ petition submitted by the appellants before the High Court, we give four months from today to the defendants (state government) so that they hand over the empty and peaceful possession of both flats to the appellants. Along with this, both the flats have been informed till the date of the date of handing over both flats. Going. Fare will be calculated accordingly.

“We are happy that we have been able to do justice to the appellants, who are trying restlessly to get back their property (two flats), on which the state in 1940 captured both flats for temporary use or without deeding any lease without deeding both flats for temporary use.

The High Court was hesitant to use its writ jurisdiction – SC

It seems that the High Court was hesitant to use its writ jurisdiction as it was confused on the aspect of the nature of occupation. The High Court found that the nature of the occupation is permissible. Under such circumstances, the High Court thought it appropriate to compel the appellants to take advantage of the alternative measures to file a lawsuit. The Supreme Court further commented, saying, “The High Court should have kept in mind the year i.e. 1940. This country was ruled by the British. The country was fighting a tough fight to get freedom from the British. In the year 1940, Bombay was completely different. On relevant time, the department may have ruled out the appellants or their predecessors to abandon the capture of two flats for the police department.

However, it has been 84 years since the police department is occupying both flats and using them. Look at the conduct of the department. “” To file a lawsuit from the appellants and say to get the possession back, it would be like sprinkling salt on the injury. At this time, if the appellants are asked to file a case, we wonder how many years will it take to end the case if it reaches the Supreme Court of the country. These are harsh facts, which are expected to keep in mind from the High Court in today’s time.

Supreme Court gave decision in the case, directed instructions

In 2009, he originally filed a writ petition; Instructed the state to hand over peaceful possession of flats within four months. The petitioners were ordered to pay the dues of rent from 2008. Deputy Commissioner of Police Nitin Pawar directed to file an affidavit within a week to ensure compliance.

The rule of boycott of writ jurisdiction on behalf of the availability of alternative measures is the rule of discretion, not the obligation. The apex court said that there may be many contingencies, in which the High Court may be appropriate to use its writ jurisdiction despite the availability of alternative measures.

The decision also highlighted wide constitutional implications, stating, “Injustice, whenever and wherever, should be abolished as a curse for the provisions of law and the provisions of the Constitution.”

“This is one of the cases in which the High Court should have used its writ jurisdiction easily. The constitutional powers contained in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be interrupted by any alternative measures available to the concerned party ..” The order further states that this decision has been further written that this decision has been further written in the fight for private property rights in India and a strong claim against the encroachment of the state. Advocate Dr. Sujay Kantwala, who led the legal battle in the Bombay High Court, described the historical decision as a victory of “firmness and real and adequate justice, which the common man expects from every court, in this case, from the Supreme Court, I want it to be a decision given by our Bombay High Court. The tragic is not to have the ability to contact the Supreme Court.”