The Mormugao Port Authority approached the Bombay High Court alleging that a statue of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj had been erected on its land at Vasco‑da‑Gama without any lawful permission. The Authority contended that the installation amounted to forcible encroachment carried out by local persons who were purportedly backed by MLA Sankalp Amonkar, his wife and several local corporators. It stated that despite repeated complaints lodged with the Bogda Police Station and other authorities, no action had been taken to remove the statue or to register a first information report.
The Port Authority’s plea further asserted that the continued presence of the statue constituted a clear invasion of its property and that the State government had acted as a mere bystander, effectively tacitly colluding with those responsible for the illegal occupation.
Bombay High Court’s Findings and Order
A division bench comprising Justice Valmiki Menezes and Justice Amit Jamsandekar examined the matter and recorded that the statue had been installed in “gross violation” of applicable local laws and was constructed illegally. The bench observed that the State, through its police force and executive magistrates, bears the duty to prevent such invasions of property and to preserve public safety, irrespective of whether the land in question is under the jurisdiction of a central security force such as the CISF.
The High Court criticised the Goa Government’s argument that, because the land is owned by the Port Authority, its own CISF and security personnel could adequately address the illegality. It held that the State cannot be heard to claim that the Police Force or Executive Magistrates have no duty to intervene when property vested in a Port Authority, an Airport Authority or any similar installation is subjected to trespass.
The bench further noted that the senior officer at the Bogda Police Station ought to have considered registering an FIR on the basis of the allegations, which disclosed an offence of criminal trespass under Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, a cognizable offence. Despite repeated pleas highlighting a potential law and order situation, the authorities had taken no steps, prompting the High Court to describe the State’s conduct as that of a bystander.
Consequently, the High Court directed the removal of the statue from the Port Authority’s land and called upon the concerned authorities to ensure compliance with the order.
Supreme Court Proceedings
A petition challenging the High Court’s direction was listed before a partial Court working days bench of the Supreme Court composed of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Sheel Nagu. The petitioners contended that the High Court had granted final relief at an interim stage, thereby exceeding its jurisdiction.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench expressed a disinclination to interfere with the High Court’s order. In light of this stance, the petitioners opted to withdraw the case. The Supreme Court recorded the matter as dismissed as withdrawn.
Nevertheless, the bench afforded the petitioners liberty to move an appropriate application before the Bombay High Court seeking a variation or modification of its order, should they wish to pursue any further relief on the matter.
Implications of the Order
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that interlocutory challenges to High Court orders directing the removal of unlawful constructions will not be entertained absent a demonstrable jurisdictional error. By granting liberty to approach the High Court for a variation, the Court preserved the petitioners’ right to seek relief while affirming the correctness of the High Court’s findings on the illegal nature of the statue’s installation.
The High Court’s observations regarding the duty of the State police and executive authorities to act against trespass on property held by central or State entities reinforce the obligation of law‑enforcement agencies to intervene irrespective of the governing body responsible for the land’s security. The ruling also clarifies that reliance on central forces such as the CISF does not absolve the State police of their statutory responsibility to prevent and investigate criminal trespass.
In practical terms, the Mormugao Port Authority may now proceed with the removal of the statue in compliance with the High Court’s directive, while the petitioners retain the option to approach the High Court again if they seek to challenge specific aspects of the order, such as the manner or timeline of removal.