Navi Mumbai Airport: Bombay High Court Quashes CIDCO’s Land Acquisition Over Procedural Violations

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed CIDCO’s land acquisition proceedings for the Navi Mumbai International Airport, citing procedural violations. The court ruled that the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) and the state government failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, particularly Section 5A, which grants landowners the right to object before their land is acquired.

A division bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain reaffirmed citizens' property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution, emphasizing that property rights, though no longer fundamental, remain constitutional and human rights.

The case was filed by 16 landowners from Vahal village in Panvel, Raigad district, challenging CIDCO’s acquisition of their agricultural land for the airport project. The process began with a notification on December 7, 2013, under Section 4 of the Act, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on May 20, 2015.

The petitioners argued that the authorities failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 5A, which allows affected parties to voice objections. They further contended that no urgency notification under Section 17 was issued to justify bypassing this inquiry.

CIDCO defended the acquisition, stating that the petitioners had delayed their legal challenge and had previously applied for rehabilitation, indicating consent. The agency also maintained that the acquisition was in the public interest and that compliance with Section 5A was a minor technicality.

However, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the Section 6 declaration and the subsequent acquisition. The bench held that without a valid urgency notification under Section 17(4), skipping the Section 5A inquiry was illegal.

“The right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham,” the court emphasized, rejecting CIDCO’s argument that urgency provisions could be deemed invoked.

A request by the state for a stay on the ruling was also declined.

Senior Advocate AV Anturkar and his team represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocates GS Hegde and Atul Damle appeared for CIDCO and intervenors, respectively.