HC rejects landowners’ claims to Navi Mumbai Airport land citing delay in challenge

Bombay HC dismisses land acquisition dispute for Navi Mumbai airport, citing 50-year delay and lack of timely challenge to compensation award.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court recently dismissed a land acquisition dispute concerning the land given to the Navi Mumbai International Airport (NMIA), saying it cannot aid petitioners to ‘dig old graves in search of chance treasures.’

HT Image

The court concluded the case as time-barred due to the 50-year delay in the challenge and said that both the petitioners and their predecessors had ample opportunities to challenge the compensation award issued in February 1970 within a reasonable timeframe.

Justices Nitin Jamdar and M M Sathaye presided over the case involving 23 petitioners from Village Kopar in Raigad district. In 2019, the petitioners contested the acquisition of their lands under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 for public projects. They claimed ownership and asserted ongoing possession, although revenue records had the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) — a government entity responsible for planning and developing urban areas in Maharashtra — as the landholder.

The case can be traced back to 1959 when the government identified the lands for the Panvel drainage project. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued identifying the land suitable for the project, followed by a compensation award in 1970. Subsequent changes in land ownership occurred, ultimately transferring to CIDCO for development purposes. CIDCO earmarked the acquired lands for the construction of NMIA, a crucial infrastructure project to address the growing air traffic demands in the region. This decision was made in line with the broader development plans for Navi Mumbai and the surrounding areas.

Over time, the acquisition became the subject of legal dispute, with the petitioners’ raising objections related to compensation, possession, and the legality of the acquisition process under relevant land acquisition laws, including the 2013 Act (The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act) that replaced the 1894 Act.

However, the court found their claims of possession inconsistent with the records and emphasised their awareness of the possession transfer to CIDCO.

The state and CIDCO opposed the petition, citing delays and the critical importance of the lands for the airport project. They contested the petitioners’ claims of possession and highlighted procedural regularities in the acquisition process.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, noting undue delay and inconsistent contentions, reminiscent of opportunistic litigation post the enactment of the 2013 Act. The decision underscored the need for timely legal action and dismissed the petition accordingly.