New Delhi, May 30 (Reporter) In a significant environmental ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday set aside a 2018 Bombay High Court direction that had ordered the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (BMC) to restore the 100-year-old Khajuria Lake, which had been filled in and replaced with a municipal garden. The Court instead directed that the existing public park be maintained in perpetuity as a green space exclusively for public use and free from any predominant commercial activity. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh delivered the judgment, emphasising the importance of balancing ecological restoration with the present-day utility of urban green spaces. The Court further directed the constitution of an expert committee within three months to explore the feasibility of developing an alternative water body in nearby areas as compensatory ecological development. Additionally, the BMC was directed to undertake a comprehensive restoration of other deteriorating water bodies across the municipal limits within 12 months. While examining the transformation of the site, the Court focused on three critical aspects: Historical condition of the lake, Present ecological and social value of the park, and Feasibility and consequences of restoration. On the first aspect, the Court acknowledged that material existed showing a water body at the site. However, it was not conclusively established that Khajuria Lake remained a functional ecosystem at the time of redevelopment. “It was categorically averred that when work for the project commenced in 2009, the subject property existed in an abandoned and dilapidated state, having deteriorated into a garbage dumping ground that had completely lost its original character as a water body,” the Court noted. Regarding the second aspect, the Court observed that the current park is a well-maintained and vital green space in an increasingly urbanised and concrete-heavy environment. “We are adjudicating this appeal in 2025, nearly 15 years after the park became functional. "During this extended temporal span, an entire generation of children has grown up with this green space as an integral component of their existence,” the bench observed, highlighting that the trees planted during the garden’s inception had matured and now provide vital ecological benefits like oxygen generation, air purification, and climate regulation. On the third aspect, the Court held that attempting to restore the lake would involve significant public expenditure and may paradoxically lead to environmental harm. “Such an outcome would create a paradox wherein environmental restoration results in greater ecological harm than the original transformation, a classic case of counter-productive remedial intervention,” the Court warned. It also highlighted that, in the absence of a natural catchment area, recreating the lake could result in stagnant water becoming a public health hazard, especially during monsoons. The Court further criticised the delay in filing the original petition, noting that it was brought nearly five years after the redevelopment project began. “It is well-settled that environmental grievances must be raised promptly when alleged violations commence and not after transformative changes have materialised and become entrenched,” the Court said, adding that this delay had led to an “irreversible fait accompli". The petitioner had claimed that Khajuria Lake, previously used for Ganesh idol immersion and home to rare fish, tortoises, and migratory birds, was filled up illegally by the BMC without the Collector’s permission. Bhoomi Pujan for the garden was performed in 2010, and a musical fountain was later added. The municipal garden was officially opened to the public in December 2011. As per the petitioner, the lake was originally part of land granted by the State Government to Vithaldas Mathurdas and other heirs of the Khimji Vallabdas Trust Estate, and now belongs to the Collector. Despite the historical significance, the Supreme Court held that restoration at this stage would be impractical, given the evolved ecological, social, and urban context. The court said, we must strike a pragmatic balance between environmental history and contemporary urban sustainability...////...