The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the proceedings for the acquisition of agricultural land for the proposed Navi Mumbai International Airport project [Avinash Dhavji Naik v State of Maharashtra].The Court found that there were procedural lapses in that authorities had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, particularly Section 5A, which grants landowners the right to raise objections before their land is acquired.A Bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, while allowing the petition filed by 16 landowners, also reaffirmed the property rights of citizens as enshrined in the constitution. “Though the property right may no longer be a fundamental right, it is accepted as the Constitutional Right vide Article 300A. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that property rights are also Human Rights,” the court observed..The petitioners, owners of agricultural lands in Vahal village of Panvel Taluka in Raigad district challenged the land acquisition initiated by the State government and the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) for the construction of the Navi Mumbai International Airport. The acquisition process began with a notification issued on December 7, 2013, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on May 20, 2015. The landowners contended that the declaration was issued without complying with the mandatory requirement of holding an inquiry under Section 5A, which allows affected parties the right to file objections. The petitioners argued that no notification invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, which would bypass the inquiry, had been issued.The petitioners further argued that they had not been given a proper hearing and that their right to be heard under Section 5A had been denied. .CIDCO defended the acquisition and argued that the petitioners had approached the Court after considerable delay and that their actions, such as applying for rehabilitation, indicated acquiescence to the process. It was also contended that the acquisition was in the public interest as the land acquisition was essential for the construction of the international airport and that compliance with Section 5A was merely a technicality.After hearing both parties, the Court agreed with the petitioners and quashed the Section 6 declaration and the subsequent award with respect to petitioner's property. .The Court found that there was no valid notification under Section 17(4) invoking the urgency provisions, which would have allowed the bypassing of the Section 5A inquiry. “Without any notification/direction under Section 17 invoking the urgency provisions, compliance with the provisions of Section 5A was mandatory. Admittedly, the requirements of Section 5A were not complied with in these matters. The issuance of the Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2014 without compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 5A vitiates the Section 6 declaration. On this ground alone, the declaration is liable to be declared null and void,” the Bench observed..The Court also rejected CIDCO’s argument that the urgency provisions could be “deemed” to have been invoked. “Either it is invoked after due record of satisfaction and application of mind, or it is not. There can be no casualness or ambiguity of the level now displayed in these matters. Invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 is a grave matter because, by such invocation, one of the most salutary provisions in Section 5A is sought to be dispensed with,” the Court made it clear. Further, it also underscored the importance of the right to be heard. “The right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham,” the Court underlined.After the judgment was pronounced, the counsel for State sought a stay on the judgment but the Bench declined to grant the same saying that a stay on the judgment at this stage would amount to vacating an interim order granting relief to the petitioners..Senior Advocate AV Anturkar with advocates Sachin S Punde and Kaustubh Patil appeared for the petitioners.Additional Government Pleaders AI Patel and MS Bane appeared for the stateSenior Advocate GS Hegde with advocate Pinky Bhansali instructed by advocate Ashutosh M Kulkarni appeared for CIDCO.Senior Advocate Atul Damle with advocate Sachin K Hande represented the intervenor- allottees..[Read Judgment]
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday quashed the proceedings for the acquisition of agricultural land for the proposed Navi Mumbai International Airport project [Avinash Dhavji Naik v State of Maharashtra].The Court found that there were procedural lapses in that authorities had failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894, particularly Section 5A, which grants landowners the right to raise objections before their land is acquired.A Bench of Justice MS Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain, while allowing the petition filed by 16 landowners, also reaffirmed the property rights of citizens as enshrined in the constitution. “Though the property right may no longer be a fundamental right, it is accepted as the Constitutional Right vide Article 300A. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that property rights are also Human Rights,” the court observed..The petitioners, owners of agricultural lands in Vahal village of Panvel Taluka in Raigad district challenged the land acquisition initiated by the State government and the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) for the construction of the Navi Mumbai International Airport. The acquisition process began with a notification issued on December 7, 2013, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on May 20, 2015. The landowners contended that the declaration was issued without complying with the mandatory requirement of holding an inquiry under Section 5A, which allows affected parties the right to file objections. The petitioners argued that no notification invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, which would bypass the inquiry, had been issued.The petitioners further argued that they had not been given a proper hearing and that their right to be heard under Section 5A had been denied. .CIDCO defended the acquisition and argued that the petitioners had approached the Court after considerable delay and that their actions, such as applying for rehabilitation, indicated acquiescence to the process. It was also contended that the acquisition was in the public interest as the land acquisition was essential for the construction of the international airport and that compliance with Section 5A was merely a technicality.After hearing both parties, the Court agreed with the petitioners and quashed the Section 6 declaration and the subsequent award with respect to petitioner's property. .The Court found that there was no valid notification under Section 17(4) invoking the urgency provisions, which would have allowed the bypassing of the Section 5A inquiry. “Without any notification/direction under Section 17 invoking the urgency provisions, compliance with the provisions of Section 5A was mandatory. Admittedly, the requirements of Section 5A were not complied with in these matters. The issuance of the Section 6 declaration dated 20 May 2014 without compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 5A vitiates the Section 6 declaration. On this ground alone, the declaration is liable to be declared null and void,” the Bench observed..The Court also rejected CIDCO’s argument that the urgency provisions could be “deemed” to have been invoked. “Either it is invoked after due record of satisfaction and application of mind, or it is not. There can be no casualness or ambiguity of the level now displayed in these matters. Invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 is a grave matter because, by such invocation, one of the most salutary provisions in Section 5A is sought to be dispensed with,” the Court made it clear. Further, it also underscored the importance of the right to be heard. “The right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham,” the Court underlined.After the judgment was pronounced, the counsel for State sought a stay on the judgment but the Bench declined to grant the same saying that a stay on the judgment at this stage would amount to vacating an interim order granting relief to the petitioners..Senior Advocate AV Anturkar with advocates Sachin S Punde and Kaustubh Patil appeared for the petitioners.Additional Government Pleaders AI Patel and MS Bane appeared for the stateSenior Advocate GS Hegde with advocate Pinky Bhansali instructed by advocate Ashutosh M Kulkarni appeared for CIDCO.Senior Advocate Atul Damle with advocate Sachin K Hande represented the intervenor- allottees..[Read Judgment]
