In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Maharashtra Police Department to vacate two residential flats in South Mumbai that have been unlawfully occupied since 1940. The apex court also strongly criticized the Bombay High Court for denying the rightful owners’ plea under Article 226 of the Constitution, which sought recovery of their long-lost possession.
The case, Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., arose after the owners sought the return of Flat Nos. 11 and 12 in Amar Bhavan, A.R. Rangekar Marg, Opera House, Mumbai — properties given temporarily to the police during British rule and never returned.
“This is one of those cases wherein the High Court should have readily exercised its writ jurisdiction. The constitutional powers vested in the High Court or the Supreme Court cannot be fettered by any alternative remedy available to the party concerned,” the Supreme Court observed.
84 Years of Unlawful Occupation
According to the appellants, the flats were handed over in 1940 to accommodate police officers due to law and order needs at the time. No written lease or requisition order was ever executed. Although a nominal rent of ₹611 was paid until December 2007, no payment has been made since January 2008.
“Look at the conduct of the Department. We are informed that past eighteen years even rent has not been paid,” the bench remarked.
Despite this, the Bombay High Court rejected the owners’ writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative civil suit remedy. The Supreme Court deemed this reasoning flawed.
“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... These are the hard facts, the High Courts are expected to keep in mind in today’s times.”
Read Also:- Runaway Marriages Don't Guarantee Police Protection Without Real Threat: Allahabad High Court
The case was heard by a bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. They highlighted that the High Court misjudged the nature of possession, focusing only on whether it was permissive or not. Instead, the apex court emphasized justice, fairness, and the extraordinary length of illegal occupation.
“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.”
During the proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mr. Nitin Pawar, confirmed that two police families were currently residing in the flats, not the department itself. The monthly rent for these South Bombay flats was merely ₹700 — far below market value.
After multiple chances were given to the State for negotiation or settlement — including proposals for paying market rent, outright purchase, or vacating the flats — the government failed to respond effectively.
As a result, the Supreme Court:
- Set aside the Bombay High Court’s April 2024 judgment,
- Allowed the original writ petition filed by the owners,
- Granted four months for the police to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the flats,
- Ordered payment of all pending rent from 2008 till the handover date,
- Directed the Deputy Commissioner to file an affidavit of undertaking within a week.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court: PPL Cannot Issue Licenses for Sound Recordings Without Copyright Society Registration
“We are happy that we have been able to do justice with the appellants who have been frantically trying to get back their property... which the State occupied way back in the year 1940 without any written order or lease deed,” the bench noted.
The judgment sends a strong message about protecting property rights and ensuring state authorities do not misuse their power.
“The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion.”
Case Title: NEHA CHANDRAKANT SHROFF & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
