The Bombay High Court has stopped the land acquisition for the Navi Mumbai International Airport project due to legal errors and improper procedures. The court gave this decision on Monday after a group of farmers from Navi Mumbai filed petitions. They had challenged the 2013 notice that took their agricultural land in Vahal village, Panvel for the project.

A bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain said that the land acquisition process by CIDCO and the Maharashtra government was not done properly. They pointed out that there was no valid notification and that the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894 were used incorrectly.

The court said that Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, of 1894, allows the Collector to take over land in urgent cases, even before deciding on compensation. However, the bench ruled that the land acquisition was illegal because officials did not follow Section 5A, which requires a proper inquiry.

Section 5A gives people the right to object if their land is being taken for a public project. They have 30 days after the notification to raise concerns.The court further said that landowners have the right to be heard before their land is taken by the government. This rule is important to prevent unfair land acquisition.

Advocate AV Anturkar argued that the government wrongly claimed urgency to take the land, even though no such urgency notification existed. He pointed out that the government failed to provide proof, despite being given several chances.

On the other hand, Additional Government Pleader AI Patel insisted that the court should assume such a notification existed and that the project was for public benefit. He requested the court to modify the decision instead of completely cancelling the land acquisition.

However, the bench ruled that projects of public importance should not be used as an excuse to take private property without following legal procedures. The court stressed that proper legal steps must be followed, as this was not a case of true urgency.

The court stated that urgency provisions can only be used in genuine emergency cases and must be properly justified. It stressed that bypassing Section 5A, which allows landowners to object, was unlawful in this case.
The bench emphasized that the right to be heard must be meaningful, not just a formality.

While cancelling the land acquisition, the court noted that farmers still owned the land, so no action was needed to restore possession.The state government requested a pause on the order, but the court refused. Meanwhile, the Navi Mumbai airport construction is nearly complete, with operations set to begin soon.

You might also be interested in - Mumbai woman inserts blade in private parts to hide alleged rape—Here’s what happened