“Neha Shroff Doctrine”: Mandatory Writ Relief Against Long‑Standing, Unauthorised State Occupation of Private Property

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India in Neha Chandrakant Shroff & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 INSC 484) has carved out a significant rule—now dubbed the “Neha Shroff Doctrine”—that when the State continues to occupy private property without any lawful requisition, lease or statutory authority for an inordinate period, High Courts ought to exercise their writ jurisdiction under Article 226 notwithstanding the availability of ordinary civil‑law remedies. The judgment emerges from an 84‑year saga wherein two residential flats in South Mumbai, originally lent temporarily to the Police Department in 1940, remained in State occupation at a token rent, eventually without payment.

Summary of the Judgment

1. The Bombay High Court had dismissed the owners’ writ petition on the ground that the nature of possession was disputed and that an ordinary civil suit under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 was the proper remedy.
2. The Supreme Court:

Granted leave, set aside the High Court’s decision, and allowed the writ petition.
Directed the Police Department to vacate within four months and pay rent arrears from 2008 onwards.
Required a senior police officer to file a personal undertaking within one week to ensure compliance.
Held that the “rule of alternative remedy” is discretionary and cannot defeat constitutional justice where the State’s occupation is prima facie illegal and continuing.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 2 SCC 337 – permitted writ relief where requisitioned premises were retained after the statutory period.
Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 192 – emphasised restitution of requisitioned property.
Roy Estate v. State Of Jharkhand (2009) 12 SCC 194 – dealt with State’s continuing possession without renewal.
Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra v. Anil Harish (2007) – relied on by the State; Court had insisted on civil‑suit route. The present Bench distinguished it, citing factual differences and the extreme passage of time.
Though not expressly mentioned, the Court’s reasoning dovetails with Whirlpool Corp. (1998) and Harbanslal Sahnia (2003) on exceptions to the alternative‑remedy rule.

B. Legal Reasoning

Lack of legal foundation for possession: No requisition order under the Bombay (later Maharashtra) Land Requisition Act, 1948, and no lease deed. Payments of Rs. 611/‑ per month (later stopped) could not legalise perpetual occupation.
Constitutional primacy over procedural hurdles: Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue directions for enforcement of fundamental and other legal rights. Where the State itself is a wrongful occupier, asking citizens to engage in protracted civil litigation would amount to “adding insult to injury”.
Temporal gravity: 84 years of occupation transformed the issue from a landlord–tenant dispute into a constitutional wrong implicating Article 300‑A (right to property) and the rule of law.
Equitable considerations: The Court highlighted the meagre rent, non‑payment since 2008, and the fact that the premises were used not even as an office but as private residences for police families.
Discretion in the ‘alternative remedy’ doctrine: Reiterating that the rule is of discretion, not compulsion, the Court declared that constitutional courts should not abdicate when the injustice is patent, continuing, and perpetrated by the State itself.

C. Impact

Guidance for High Courts: The judgment sets a precedent that long‑standing, unauthorised State occupation is an exceptional circumstance requiring immediate writ relief.
Strengthening Article 300‑A Jurisprudence: Elevates the constitutional right to property against executive overreach, despite its status as a mere constitutional, not fundamental, right.
Administrative Accountability: Mandating a senior officer’s personal undertaking introduces a higher tier of compliance monitoring.
Policy Repercussions: State departments across India may be compelled to audit and regularise occupation of private premises, negotiate fresh leases at market rates, or vacate.
Litigation Strategy: Property owners confronting similar State occupation can now rely on the “Neha Shroff Doctrine” to bypass lengthy civil proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 226 (Writ Jurisdiction): Empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental and other rights; discretionary but flexible.
Rule of Alternative Remedy: A self‑imposed restraint whereby writ courts usually decline intervention if another statutory forum exists. However, exceptions include (i) violation of fundamental rights, (ii) violation of natural justice, (iii) lack of jurisdiction, or (iv) manifest injustice—precisely the scenario in this case.
Requisition vs. Lease: “Requisition” is a statutory temporary takeover under emergency/defence laws; it requires a written order and compensation. A “lease” is a consensual contract. Absence of both makes possession unauthorised.
Article 300‑A: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their property save by authority of law; although not a fundamental right (after the 44th Amendment), it is a constitutional right enforceable via writs.
Personal Undertaking: A sworn affidavit by a responsible officer, breach of which may attract contempt of court and personal liability.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision crystallises a pragmatic yet powerful doctrinal shift: when the State’s occupation of private property is unsupported by law and has hardened over decades, writ courts not only may but must intervene to restore the rule of law. The judgment realigns the balance between individual property rights and executive convenience, underscoring that administrative inertia cannot petrify into permanent possession. By compelling vacatur, directing arrears, and insisting on a personal undertaking, the Court sets a high watermark in constitutional remedies against State impunity. Future litigants and courts alike will invoke the “Neha Shroff Doctrine” as a touchstone for immediate restitution where alternative remedies would be illusory or oppressive.