+
Bombay HC Quashes Navi Mumbai Airport Land Acquisition as Illegal
AVIATION & AIRPORTS

Bombay HC Quashes Navi Mumbai Airport Land Acquisition as Illegal

The Bombay High Court has strongly rebuked the Maharashtra government and CIDCO for arbitrarily invoking the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire land for the Navi Mumbai International Airport.

In a landmark ruling, the court quashed the Section 6 declaration issued on 20 May 2015 and the subsequent award dated 7 July 2017, deeming the acquisition illegal. Section 6 permits the government to declare land as required for a public purpose, but the HC found that the authorities failed to justify bypassing the mandatory inquiry under Section 5A, which grants affected landowners the right to be heard.

The case involved petitions by agriculturists from Vahal village, Panvel, Raigad, whose land was acquired for ancillary works, including a sewage treatment plant. However, a bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that no material evidence was provided to justify invoking urgency. “None of the affidavits explain or give any reasons for it,” the court noted.

The HC further pointed out that neither CIDCO nor the state government could produce any notification or direction invoking urgency. “There can be no deemed invocation of urgency. Either it is invoked after due record of satisfaction and application of mind, or it is not,” the court ruled, criticising the authorities for their “casualness or ambiguity” in handling the matter.

Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court reaffirmed that landowners have a fundamental right to be heard before their land is forcibly acquired. “This right must be meaningful and not a sham,” it emphasised.

The court found that the agriculturists had filed objections within the stipulated time under Section 5A, yet their objections were ignored, and no hearing was granted—violating principles of natural justice and fair play.

It also highlighted contradictions in the government’s claim of urgency, noting that nearly two years had elapsed between the Section 4 notification (7 December 2013) and the Section 6 declaration (20 May 2015). Additionally, it took 13 months to publish the Section 4 notification in the village, further weakening the urgency claim.

The state’s advocate, AI Patel, was unable to confirm whether any urgency notification under Section 17(4) had been issued. The government failed to produce the document, merely arguing that since the Section 6 declaration referred to an urgency notification, “there must have been some such notification.” The court rejected this, stating that urgency provisions cannot be presumed without proof.

CIDCO’s counsel, GS Hegde, defended the acquisition, asserting that it served the ‘laudable purpose’ of township development and dismissed the petitioners’ objections as ‘technical pleas.’ He further claimed that hearings under Section 5A were unnecessary as the project was in the public interest. However, the HC rejected this argument, stressing that compliance with Section 5A is a statutory requirement. “Since a challenge was raised, the respondents had to justify invoking urgency by filing a proper affidavit with relevant material,” the court ruled.

As a result, the HC declared the urgency clause invocation unlawful, quashed the Section 6 declaration, and annulled the subsequent award. While it did not quash the Section 4 notification, it left open the question of compensation should the government proceed with the acquisition legally.

Additionally, the court noted that CIDCO’s assertion of possessing the land was contradicted by its own 2018 application seeking to vacate the interim relief granted to the petitioners.

The Bombay High Court has strongly rebuked the Maharashtra government and CIDCO for arbitrarily invoking the urgency clause under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to acquire land for the Navi Mumbai International Airport. In a landmark ruling, the court quashed the Section 6 declaration issued on 20 May 2015 and the subsequent award dated 7 July 2017, deeming the acquisition illegal. Section 6 permits the government to declare land as required for a public purpose, but the HC found that the authorities failed to justify bypassing the mandatory inquiry under Section 5A, which grants affected landowners the right to be heard. The case involved petitions by agriculturists from Vahal village, Panvel, Raigad, whose land was acquired for ancillary works, including a sewage treatment plant. However, a bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain observed that no material evidence was provided to justify invoking urgency. “None of the affidavits explain or give any reasons for it,” the court noted. The HC further pointed out that neither CIDCO nor the state government could produce any notification or direction invoking urgency. “There can be no deemed invocation of urgency. Either it is invoked after due record of satisfaction and application of mind, or it is not,” the court ruled, criticising the authorities for their “casualness or ambiguity” in handling the matter. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court reaffirmed that landowners have a fundamental right to be heard before their land is forcibly acquired. “This right must be meaningful and not a sham,” it emphasised. The court found that the agriculturists had filed objections within the stipulated time under Section 5A, yet their objections were ignored, and no hearing was granted—violating principles of natural justice and fair play. It also highlighted contradictions in the government’s claim of urgency, noting that nearly two years had elapsed between the Section 4 notification (7 December 2013) and the Section 6 declaration (20 May 2015). Additionally, it took 13 months to publish the Section 4 notification in the village, further weakening the urgency claim. The state’s advocate, AI Patel, was unable to confirm whether any urgency notification under Section 17(4) had been issued. The government failed to produce the document, merely arguing that since the Section 6 declaration referred to an urgency notification, “there must have been some such notification.” The court rejected this, stating that urgency provisions cannot be presumed without proof. CIDCO’s counsel, GS Hegde, defended the acquisition, asserting that it served the ‘laudable purpose’ of township development and dismissed the petitioners’ objections as ‘technical pleas.’ He further claimed that hearings under Section 5A were unnecessary as the project was in the public interest. However, the HC rejected this argument, stressing that compliance with Section 5A is a statutory requirement. “Since a challenge was raised, the respondents had to justify invoking urgency by filing a proper affidavit with relevant material,” the court ruled. As a result, the HC declared the urgency clause invocation unlawful, quashed the Section 6 declaration, and annulled the subsequent award. While it did not quash the Section 4 notification, it left open the question of compensation should the government proceed with the acquisition legally. Additionally, the court noted that CIDCO’s assertion of possessing the land was contradicted by its own 2018 application seeking to vacate the interim relief granted to the petitioners.

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

India to Invest Rs 600 Billion to Upgrade 1,000 ITIs

As part of its drive to modernise vocational training, the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE), in collaboration with Gujarat’s Labour and Employment Department, held a State-Level Workshop at the NAMTECH Campus within IIT-Gandhinagar to discuss the National Scheme for ITI Upgradation.The consultation brought together key stakeholders from industry and the training ecosystem to align expectations and support implementation of the scheme, which aims to transform 1,000 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) across India using a hub-and-spoke model. The total outlay stands ..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

India Unveils Rs 600 Billion Maritime Finance Push

The Ministry of Ports, Shipping & Waterways (MoPSW) hosted the Maritime Financing Summit 2025 in New Delhi, bringing together over 250 stakeholders including policymakers, industry leaders, global investors, and financial institutions. The summit, held under the ambit of Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision (MAKV) 2047, focused on transforming India into a leading maritime power with strengthened financial, infrastructural, and technological capabilities.Union Minister Sarbananda Sonowal emphasised India's strategic progress, noting that average port turnaround times have dropped from four days to u..

Next Story
Infrastructure Urban

Govt Allocates Rs 500 Million To Boost Community Radio

The Central Government, through its ‘Supporting Community Radio Movement in India’ scheme, has allocated Rs 500 million to strengthen the community radio ecosystem across the country. The initiative aims to assist both newly established and long-operational Community Radio Stations (CRSs), ensuring their relevance to local educational, social, cultural, and developmental needs.According to the policy published by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, CRSs may be set up by not-for-profit organisations with at least three years of demonstrated community service. These stations are ex..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?