In a significant environmental ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a 2018 Bombay High Court order that mandated the demolition of a recreational park in Kandivali West, Mumbai, to restore the 100-year-old Khajuria Lake. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh, delivered a judgment emphasizing the need to balance ecological preservation with the practical realities and benefits of urban green spaces. The ruling underscores a move towards "contextual environmental jurisprudence," moving away from a simplistic "either-or" approach when it comes to development and environmental conservation.
The heart of the dispute lay in a plot of land that was once Khajuria Lake, a historic water body traditionally used for Ganesh idol immersions. Over time, the lake deteriorated and became a dumping ground. In 2008, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) identified the site for beautification under a city-wide theme park initiative. Despite not obtaining formal clearance from the state government, the MCGM proceeded with the project, completing the park in 2011 at a cost of ₹5 crore. The park has since become a vibrant community space, featuring landscaped gardens and a musical fountain.
In 2012, a news report led to a public interest litigation (PIL) being filed in the Bombay High Court, which directed the demolition of the park and restoration of the lake, citing the public trust doctrine and environmental protection principles. However, the Supreme Court has now set aside this order, recognizing the "transformed reality" of the site and the substantial public benefit derived from the park.
Justice Surya Kant, writing the judgment for the bench, acknowledged the historical presence of the lake but noted that it had ceased to function as a viable water body by the time the park project commenced. The court emphasized that demolishing the park would be counterproductive, leading to ecological damage through the felling of trees and the waste of significant public investment. The judgment also pointed out the lack of a natural catchment area for the lake, suggesting that a recreated pond could become a stagnant water hazard.
The Supreme Court has directed that the existing park be maintained exclusively for public use, prohibiting any major commercial activity. Furthermore, the court has mandated the establishment of an expert committee within three months to identify suitable locations for developing an alternative water body in the vicinity. The MCGM has also been directed to undertake a comprehensive restoration of other deteriorating water bodies within its municipal limits within the next 12 months.
The Supreme Court's decision was based on a careful consideration of three critical aspects: the historical condition of the lake, the present ecological and social value of the park, and the feasibility and consequences of restoration. The court recognized that the park has become a vital green space in an increasingly urbanized environment. It also acknowledged that a generation of children has grown up with the park as an integral part of their lives and that the trees planted during the park's inception now provide essential ecological benefits.
This ruling highlights a nuanced approach to environmental jurisprudence, recognizing that there is not always a simple choice between development and conservation. It emphasizes the importance of considering the specific context, the potential for unintended consequences, and the needs of the community when making decisions about land use and environmental protection. The Supreme Court's judgment serves as a reminder that environmental law must adapt to changing realities and prioritize solutions that promote both ecological sustainability and human well-being.
