Supreme Court Orders Maharashtra Police to Vacate Flats Occupied Since 1940
In a landmark judgment delivered on April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India directed the Maharashtra Police to vacate two flats in Mumbai that they had been occupying since 1940 without any proper documentation. The case involved a protracted legal battle between the property owners, Neha Chandrakant Shroff and another, and the State of Maharashtra.
The dispute centered around Flat Nos.11 and 12 on the 3rd floor of ‘Amar Bhavan’ at A.R. Rangekar Marg, Opera House, Mumbai. The police department had been occupying these flats since 1940, initially paying a meager rent of Rs.611 per month, which stopped completely after 2007. The owners sought repossession of their property through a writ petition filed in 2009, which was rejected by the Bombay High Court in 2024, leading to the present appeal.
Key Arguments from the Appellants (Property Owners):
The appellants’ counsel, Dr. Sujay Kantawala, argued that “the action on the part of the respondents in not releasing and thereafter restoring the possession of Flat Nos.11 and 12… is unlawful, illegal and in violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights.” He emphasized that “in or about the year 1940, the aforesaid two flats were permitted to be temporarily occupied by the Police Department at their request” and that “there was no written contract executed between their predecessor and the Police Department.”
The counsel further pointed out that “the information supplied to the petitioners under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005… indicated that the respondents had no record to indicate the period when the monthly payment towards occupying these flats was paid.” He relied on several Supreme Court judgments to argue that after 84 years of occupation, the owners were entitled to get back their property.
Key Arguments from the Respondents (State of Maharashtra):
The State’s counsel, Mr. Mohit Jadhav, opposed these submissions, arguing that “in absence of any written order of requisition, it was not open for the petitioners to contend that the respondents had requisitioned the two flats in the year 1940.” He maintained that “possession of the same was handed over voluntarily and monthly amounts were being paid to the predecessor of the petitioners.”
The State relied on a previous Supreme Court judgment (Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra Vs. Anil Harish) to argue that the appropriate remedy for the owners was to file a civil suit rather than approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
The Court’s Analysis and Findings:
The Supreme Court noted several crucial facts in its judgment:
“It is an admitted position that sometime in the year 1940, possession of Flat Nos.11 and 12 was voluntarily handed over by the predecessor of the petitioners to the Police Authorities. It is further admitted that there is no written order requisitioning the aforesaid two flats for temporary use by the Police Authorities.”
The Court observed that “the documentary material on record in the form of information supplied under the provisions of the Act of 2005 indicates that there is no written Lease Deed on the basis of which the Police Authorities have entered into possession.”
In a significant revelation during proceedings, the Court noted: “There are two families of Police Officers residing in the two flats in question. In fact, it has come to our notice today for the first time that the flats in question are not being utilized as an office of the Police Department but two families are in fact residing in these two flats in question. The monthly rent of each flat admeasuring 600 square feet situated in South Bombay is Rs.700/- (Rupees Seven Hundred) per month.”
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the State’s conduct: “It has been now 84 years that the Police Department has been in occupation and use of the two flats. Look at the conduct of the Department. We are informed that past eighteen years even rent has not been paid.”
Court’s Directions and Observations:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal with the following directions:
“We grant four months’ time to the respondents from today to handover vacant and peaceful possession of both the flats in question to the appellants along with the arrears of rent accrued till the date of handing over of the possession of the two flats. We are informed that the Department has not been paying rent from 2008 onwards. The rent shall be calculated accordingly and be paid to the appellants.”
The Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police to file an undertaking that the department would vacate the flats within four months.
In its concluding remarks, the Court made important observations about the judicial process:
“The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. There can be many contingencies in which the High Court may be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction inspite of availability of an alternative remedy.”
“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. 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.”
The judgment serves as a strong reminder about the limits of state power over private property and the importance of proper documentation in government dealings with citizens. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in protecting property rights against arbitrary state action, even when such actions have continued for decades.
Petitioner Name: Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr..Respondent Name: The State of Maharashtra & Ors..Judgment By: Justice J.B. PARDIWALA, Justice R. MAHADEVAN.Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.Judgment Date: 08-04-2025.Result: allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: neha-chandrakant-shr-vs-the-state-of-maharas-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-04-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Lease Agreements
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Mahadevan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
