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.

Your next big infra connection is waiting at RAHSTA 2025 – Asia’s Biggest Roads & Highways Expo, Jio World Convention Centre, Mumbai. Don’t miss out!

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
Real Estate

Vitizen Hotels Signs Deal at Manyata Tech Park

Vikram Kamats Hospitality, as part of its ongoing expansion in key metropolitan markets, announced that its material subsidiary, Vitizen Hotels, has signed a long-term lease agreement for a 45-key hotel property at Manyata Tech Park, Bengaluru.Strategically located in the city’s prominent IT hub, the property is well-positioned to serve corporate travelers, business professionals, and long-stay guests. The addition aligns with the company’s asset-light growth model, leveraging long-term leases to expand its footprint in high-demand urban markets.The hotel is expected to strengthen the comp..

Next Story
Infrastructure Transport

CONCOR Signs MoU with BPIPL to Operate Container Terminal at Bhavnagar Port

Container Corporation of India (CONCOR) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Bhavnagar Port Infrastructure (BPIPL) on September 4, 2025, in New Delhi to operate and maintain the upcoming container terminal at the northside of Bhavnagar Port, Gujarat.BPIPL had earlier entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB) in September 2024 for the port’s development. Under this arrangement, 235 hectares of land has been leased to BPIPL for 30 years, with provision for expansion by an additional 250 hectares.The new terminal is expected to significantly enhance logistic..

Next Story
Infrastructure Transport

Concord Launches India’s First Indigenous Zero-Emission Rail Propulsion

Concord Control Systems (CCSL), a leader in embedded electronics and critical rail technologies, has announced the development of India’s first fully indigenous zero-emission propulsion system, marking a significant step toward the country’s railway electrification and net-zero goals for 2030.Powered by Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries and featuring a DC chopper-based drive, the propulsion system eliminates idling losses common in diesel engines, offering higher efficiency, lower costs, and zero emissions.What sets this innovation apart is its completely indigenous design. Except for..

Advertisement

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get daily newsletters around different themes from Construction world.

STAY CONNECTED

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Talk to us?