Mumbai, Mar 4 (PTI) The Bombay High Court on Tuesday questioned the Maharashtra government and the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) for arbitrarily invoking the urgency clause of a law to acquire land for the upcoming Navi Mumbai international airport's ancillary work.
A division bench of Justices M S Sonak and Jitendra Jain held the acquisition process illegal and quashed Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act issued in May 2015 and the subsequent award of July 2017.
Section 6 says the government can declare that a particular land is required urgently for a public project.
The bench was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by agriculturists from Vahal village in Panvel taluka of Raigad district whose lands were acquired for ancillary and allied works related to the airport, including setting up of a sewage treatment plant.
In its order, the court also held that the authorities failed to justify bypassing of the mandatory provision of Section 5A of the Act which grants affected landowners the right to be heard.
The bench said the urgency clause to acquire land can be invoked only in cases of "grave and real urgency".
"No material is produced on record to justify the alleged invocation of the urgency provisions. None of the affidavits explain or give any reasons justifying the alleged invocation of the urgency clause in these matters," the HC said.
Neither the CIDCO nor the state government could produce any official notification or direction invoking the urgency clause, it added.
The bench relied on a Supreme Court order that said landowners have a fundamental right to be heard before their land is acquired.
"This right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham," the HC said.
The bench said by not granting the petitioners a hearing, the authorities had violated the "principles of natural justice and fair play".
CIDCO's advocate G S Hegde argued that the acquisition was for a "laudable purpose" of developing a new township, and sought dismissal of the petitioners' objections as "technical pleas".
The HC ruled that the invocation of the urgency clause was unlawful, and quashed the Section 6 declaration and subsequent award.
The court, however, said its order shall not preclude the authorities from acquiring the petitioners' properties by following the law and lawful procedures.
The court also left open the question of compensation should the government proceed with acquisition in compliance with the law.