Court says choice between Site 1A and Site 5A is a policy and technical decision best left to expert authorities; landowners may still pursue statutory remedies on compensation and compliance.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by farmers and landowners challenging the selection of Site 1A for the proposed Greenfield International Airport at Purandar, Pune, and seeking to stop land acquisition for the project.
A division bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Advait M. Sethna held that the decision to locate a major public infrastructure project such as an airport is a policy matter that lies primarily within the domain of expert and governmental authorities. The court said it cannot compare alternative sites or substitute its own view for that of technical bodies unless there is clear evidence of mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, statutory violation, or non-compliance with mandatory norms.
The petitioners, who are agriculturists owning land in several villages in Purandar taluka, had argued that Site 5A was a better and less disruptive option than Site 1A. They contended that Site 1A suffered from technical and operational limitations, including safety concerns, height restrictions, and overlap with the catchment area of Navi Mumbai International Airport. They also claimed that the lands proposed for acquisition were fertile, multi-crop agricultural lands and that the extent of acquisition was excessive.
The court, however, found that the petition was essentially an attempt to prevent acquisition of the petitioners’ lands by challenging the siting of the airport itself. It noted that while alternative sites had been examined at different stages, Site 5A was never finalized, its NOC was later cancelled, and Site 1A was restored after fresh approvals from the competent authorities, including the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including BALCO Employees’ Union, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Union of India v. Kushala Shetty, and the recent decision in Alok Kotahwala, the bench reiterated that courts should exercise restraint in matters involving public infrastructure planning, feasibility, alignment, and site selection. The judges observed that the State is best placed to assess land suitability and project requirements, especially when the project serves larger public interest.
On the acquisition challenge, the court noted that statutory notifications had been issued under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, objections had been invited and heard, and a final notification under Section 32(1) had already been issued. The acquisition, the bench said, had either been completed or had reached an advanced stage, leaving no scope for interference at this stage.
At the same time, the court clarified that the landowners would remain free to pursue appropriate statutory remedies concerning compliance issues, compensation, and disbursement under the law.
The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Bottom Line :
Land acquisition for Greenfield Airport - Challenge by landowners to selection of airport site and consequential acquisition - Court held that site selection for major public infrastructure is a policy and technical matter within the domain of expert authorities - Writ Court will not compare alternative sites or substitute its view absent mala fides, manifest arbitrariness, statutory violation or non-compliance with mandatory norms - Acquisition having substantially progressed under Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, interference declined, while preserving landowners' remedies regarding compensation and statutory compliance.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226, Article 300A, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 Sections 32 and 33, Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 Sections 32(1), 32(2), 32(3), 32(4)
Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2983378
