Bombay High Court Quashes Acquisition Of Agricultural Lands For Navi Mumbai Airport Project

A division bench of Justice M.S.Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain observed that the State authorities wrongly dispensed with the requirement of Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by taking recourse to the 'urgency provision' under Section 17. The Court stated that the State did not issue any notification or direction to invoke Section 17.  

"Thus, this is a matter where the Respondents have failed to produce any notification/direction, or, for that matter, any document regarding the invocation of the urgency clause under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894. There was no reference to such invocation in the Section 4 notification."

For context, Section 5A provides that any person interested in any land which has been notified under Section 4(1) can file objections to the acquisition of the land within 30 days. Section 17 is an urgency provision which states that expiration of 15 days from publication of the notice under Section 9(1), the Commissioner may take possession of any land needed for public purposes. Section 17(4) provides that the Commissioner may exempt application of Sections 5 & 5A by invoking the provision.

The petitioner contended that Section 5A of the LA Act is one of the most valuable rights and the mandate of Section 5A could not have been lightly dispensed with by the respondent authorities. 

Here, the Court noted that the respondent-authorities did not consider the petitioner's objections as per Section 5A and that they were not given an opportunity to be heard contemplated in Section 5A(2). The Court observed that without invoking the urgency provisions in Section 17, Section 5A requirements were dispensed with and a Section 6 declaration (declaration that land is required for a public purpose) was issued.

The Court further observed that even if it is assumed that a Section 17 notification was issued, there was no justification to invoke the same. It noted that the authorities did not provide any material to justify the invocation of the urgency clause.

It stated that invoking Section 17 for exempting Section 5A application must be done with due application of mind and satisfaction of real urgency. It stated “Section 5A embodies the principles of natural justice and fair play before a person's land is compulsorily acquired. Therefore, invocating the urgency provisions in Section 17 must be preceded by due application of mind and satisfaction regarding real urgency.”

Here, it noted that Section 4 notification was issued on 7 December 2013 and published in the Gazette on 16 December 2013. It noted that after almost 6 months, the Section 4 notification was published in a conspicuous place. Further, nearly 13 months after its publication in the official gazette, it was published in a newspaper on 25 January 2015.

Noting that there was a delay in publishing the Section 4 notification at a conspicuous place, the Court opined that there was no real urgency for invocation of the urgency clause.

“Even if the post-notification delay is to be excluded, the delay of almost two years between the issue of Section 4 and Section 6 notifications or the delay of about 13 months in simply publishing the Section 4 notification at a conspicuous place in the village is sufficient to infer that this was not a case of any real urgency justifying the invocation of the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894.”

The Court thus held that Section 5A compliance was wrongly dispensed with by the respondent authorities.

The Court thus quashed the impugned award.

Case title: Avinash Dhavji Naik & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No. 778 Of 2018)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 82

Click Here To Read/Download Order