Bombay High Court Sets Aside Land Acquisition for Navi Mumbai Project Citing Procedural Lapses
Kiran Raj
A division bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside the acquisition of land for the Navi Mumbai Project, holding that the process was undertaken without adhering to statutory requirements. The bench, comprising Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, stated that the acquisition was carried out in violation of procedural safeguards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The petitioners, who are landowners, challenged the acquisition on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates a hearing before acquisition. They submitted that the authorities bypassed procedural safeguards, rendering the acquisition void. The court observed that there was no material on record justifying the invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Act.
The judgment states, “No material is produced on record to justify the alleged invocation of the urgency provisions. None of the affidavits explain or give any reasons justifying the alleged invocation of the urgency clause in these matters. The urgency provisions can be invoked only in grave and real urgency cases. Application of mind is necessary before urgency provisions are invoked and Section 5A provisions are excluded.”
The petitioners pointed out that the authorities relied on urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Act to dispense with the requirement of hearing objections but contended that no valid notification invoking urgency provisions had been issued. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, defended the acquisition, asserting that the project was of public importance. They argued that the petitioners’ objections were unnecessary given the government’s determination that the acquisition served a public purpose.
The court examined the records and found that there was no valid notification under Section 17(4) and no evidence that the petitioners’ objections had been duly considered. The judgment states, “The Petitioners expressly referred to their valuable rights under Section 5A of the LA Act. They said they would make detailed submissions during the Section 5A enquiry before the Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
The court observed that there was no dispute that the provisions of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were not complied with in these matters. The judgment states, “Respondents 1 to 3 did not consider the petitioners' objections, and neither the Petitioners nor their pleaders were given an opportunity to be heard as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the LA Act 1894. The Petitioners have made averments in this regard in the Petitions, which have not been denied by any of the Respondents.”
The court noted that the Section 6 declaration dated May 20, 2015, which referred to the invocation of urgency provisions, lacked supporting evidence of an actual notification. It further stated that the Section 4 notification dated December 7, 2013, made no reference to the urgency provisions. The judgment states, “If there was any such notification/direction under Section 17, whether made by the Additional Commissioner or the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), the same should have been produced on record along with the replies or even otherwise when this Court repeatedly sought the same.”
The matter pertained to the acquisition of agricultural land in Village Vahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, Maharashtra, for the Navi Mumbai Project. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO) was the acquiring authority. The petitioners submitted that CIDCO, for whose benefit the lands were being acquired, had filed interim applications for the vacation of the status quo order and the handing over of the possession of the petitioners’ lands. They maintained that the petitioners continued in possession of the lands.
The court noted that the draft award dated July 6, 2017, recorded no compliance with Section 5A requirements on the premise that the urgency provisions under Section 17 had been invoked. The judgment states, “The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) does not seem to have published a Notification under section 4 for acquisition process by citing the urgency clause. Therefore, the same should be ascertained once again. The enquiry under section 5(A) does not seem to have been held.”
The court allowed the petitions and set aside the Section 6 declaration dated May 20, 2015, and the impugned award dated July 7, 2017. The judgment states, “For all the above reasons, we allow these Petitions and quash and set aside the Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2015 and the impugned Award dated 7 July 2017 to the extent they concern the Petitioners’ properties as described in their respective Petitions.”
The court also set aside the notices issued under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on August 4, 2017. The interim reliefs granted to the petitioners in 2018 were made absolute. The judgment states, “Now that we have allowed the Petition, this interim order is made absolute. A stay at this stage would virtually amount to vacating the interim order in operation since 2018. Such a stay cannot be granted.”
The court stated that this decision would not preclude the respondents from acquiring the petitioners’ land in the future, provided the acquisition was carried out in accordance with the law.
Case Title: Avinash Dhavji Naik Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. & Connected cases
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:10029-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 778 of 2018
Bench: Justice M. S. Sonak, Justice Jitendra Jain
[Read/Download order]
