HC restrains authorities from taking possession of land acquired for Navi Mumbai airport

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has recently restrained revenue authorities from taking possession of a 7,220 square metre land, which was acquired for the proposed greenfield airport being developed in Navi Mumbai

Mumbai: The Bombay high court has recently restrained revenue authorities from taking possession of a 7,220 square metre land, which was acquired for the proposed greenfield airport being developed in Navi Mumbai.

HT Image

The division bench of justice RD Dhanuka and justice MM Sathaye passed the order on a petition filed by land owner Dattatray Mhatre after finding force in submissions of his counsel, advocate Rahul Thakur, that the land acquisition award was passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, came into force.

“The petitioner has impugned the award on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the land acquisition officer to make an award under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013. In our prima facie view, there is substance in the submission,” the bench said while passing the restraining order.

Mhatre had moved the HC in 2019, challenging acquisition of his lands at Vahal village in Panvel Taluka – totaling 7,220 square metre for development of the greenfield airport and the resettlement of people affected by the airport.

He primarily contended that the entire acquisition proceeding was completed by the revenue authorities under the 1894 enactment after the 2013 enactment had already come into force.

In his petition, Mhatre stated that the 2013 enactment came into force on January 1, 2014 and on March 12, 2014, the special land acquisition officer was divested of his powers to acquire lands under the 1894 enactment by the Collector, but the special land acquisition officer went on to acquire lands owned by the petitioner. The process, according to the petition, started from June 26, 2014, when the first notification for the acquisition was published in the Official Gazette. The process eventually culminated in July 2017, when the special land acquisition officer published the award under the 1894 Act.

This, according to advocate Thakur was done primarily to deprive the land owner from much higher compensation package provided under the 2013 enactment – around four times the market value of the land and 20% (of the acquired property) developed land etc. and help City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) save on acquisition. Thakur said several such properties were acquired during the transition period under provisions of the old enactment.

The petition mentioned that though the authorities invoked urgency clause for acquiring the property, Mhatre, an agriculturist, is still cultivating the lands.

The HC posted Mhatre’s petition for further hearing on February 6.