Bombay High Court
PANDIT SHIVAJI KUMBHARKAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The court held that the decision to locate the airport at Site 1A and the related land acquisition are policy matters entrusted to the executive and are not subject to judicial interference absent arbitrariness, mala‑fides or violation of mandatory statutory provisions.
Summary
The petitioners, three agriculturists from Pune district, challenged the Maharashtra government's decision to site a new greenfield international airport at "Site 1A" in Purandar and the accompanying land acquisition of about 1,216.75 hectares under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. They argued that Site 1A was technically unviable, that an alternative Site 5A was superior, and that the acquisition was disproportionate and violated their rights. The respondents, including the State, MADC, MIDC, AAI and the Union of India, contended that site selection is a policy and technical matter entrusted to expert agencies and that all statutory procedures, including notices and objections under the MID Act, had been complied with. The Court examined the procedural record, noted that Site 5A was never finalized and that the decision to revert to Site 1A was made after proper clearances, and held that there was no evidence of arbitrariness, mala‑fides or statutory breach. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the site‑selection or land‑acquisition process and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The legality and propriety of the decision to site the airport at Site 1A.
- Whether the land acquisition under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, complied with statutory requirements.
- Whether the existence of an alternative site (Site 5A) mandates a reconsideration of the chosen site.
- Whether the petitioners have a cause of action for judicial review of a policy/technical decision.
Legislation cited
- Airports Authority of India Act, 1994
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 — s. 1(3), 2(g), 32(1), 32(2), 32(3), 32(4), 33
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Subjects
- land acquisition
- eminent domain
- greenfield airport
- site selection
- public interest
- statutory compliance
- technical feasibility
- policy decision
Judgment
WP-14127-2025.doc
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14127 OF 2025
1. PANDIT SHIVAJI KUMBHARKAR
Aged 35 Years, Occ. Agriculturist
Residing at Post: Udachiwadi,
Taluka: Purandhar, District:Pune.
2. VIKAS KALURAM KUMBHARKAR,
Aged 35 Years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Residing at Post:Udachiwadi,
Taluka: Purandhar,District:Pune.
3. CHANDRASHEKHAR DINKAR MEMANE,
Aged 38 Years, Occ. Agriculturist,
Resident at Post:Pargaon Memane,
Taluka: Purandhar, District:Pune. …PETITIONERS
~ versus ~
1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
through Principal Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Having Office at Mantralaya,
SHEPHALI
SANJAY Mumbai - 400 032.
MORMARE
Digitally signed
2. THE DIVISIONAL REVENUE
by SHEPHALI
SANJAY
MORMARE
Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune.
Date: 2026.09.22
17:59:22 +0530
3. THE COLLECTOR OF PUNE,
Having Office at Pune.
4. PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL
Development Authority
Survey No. 152-153,
Maharaja Sayaji, Gaikwad Udyog
Bhavan, Aundh, Pune 411067.
Page 1 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
5. MAHARASHTRA AIRPORT
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,
8th Floor, World Trade Centre,
Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400 005.
6. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
Ministry of Defence of India,
address at: Room No. 101-A,
South Block, New Delhi.
7. SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL
AVIATION,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Block B,
Safdarjung Airport Area,
Vasant Vihar, New Delhi 110003.
8. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
C-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan,
Safdarjung Airport,
New Delhi - 110003, India.
9. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation Mumbai. …RESPONDENTS
A PPEARANCES
For the Petitioners Mr Sunip Kumar Sen, Senior Advocate,
with Akshay Kolse Patil, Ms. Tanaya
Patankar and Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav.
For the Respondent-UoI Mr Anil Singh, ASG, with Mr. Aditya
Thalekar, Ms. Naveena Kumari and Ms.
Aparnaa R.S
For the Respondent-State Smt Neha S. Bhide, GP, with Mr. P.P.
Kakade, Addl. GP, Smt. R.M. Shinde,
AGP
For Respondent No. 5- Mr Shardul Singh, with Smeet Savla &
MADC Ninad Thikekar i/b. SHS Chambers.
For Respondent No. 8 Mr Darshil Shah, with Mr. Chetan
Hadolikar, Ashish Kumar Singh & Ms.
Palak Tyagi.
Page 2 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 1st SEPTEMBER 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026.
JUDGMENT (Per Suman Shyam, J):-
1. The three Petitioners in this Writ Petition are agriculturists
owning agricultural land situated at Munjewadi, Ekatpur, Pargaon,
Kumbharvalan, Vanpuri, Udachiwadi and Khanawadi villages of
Takula Purandar in the District of Pune in Maharashtra. The
Petitioners have approached this court by filing this Writ Petition
inter alia challenging the decision of the authority to site/locate
the new Greenfield Airport at “Site 1A”. They are also seeking to
halt the process of land acquisition initiated for the purpose of
construction of the proposed Greenfield Airport at Purandar, Pune.
The Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“a. That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for this
papers and proceedings including reports, presentation,
records of any third party submitted or presented to the
Respondents or any of them relating to this decision to site
an Airport of Purandar known as Site 1A and having
examined the legality and validity and propriety of the same
be pleased to quash and set aside the same;
b. That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of relating to
Page 3 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
acquisition of lands at villeges Munjewadi Ekatpur, Pargaon,
Kumbahrwalan, Vanpuri, Udachiwadi and Khanawadi at
Purandar taluka, District: Pune and stay any acquisition of
land;
c. That this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari or any other writ, order or direction of relating to
acquisition of lands at villeges Munjewadi Ekatpur, Pargaon,
Kumbahrwalan, Vanpuri, Udachiwadi and Khanawadi at
Purandar taluka, District: Pune and stay all acquisition in
furtherance of setting up an Airport at location known as site
1A, Purandar, District Pune;
d. This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
and/or a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus
restraining the respondents from, in any manner, trying to
acquire the land of the Petitioners villages for the purposes of
construction of the said international airport.
e. This Hon'ble court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
and/or a writ direction or order in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to consider all other viable options
for construction of the proposed airport”
2. The facts and circumstances of the case, giving rise to the
filing of the present Writ Petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are
as hereinunder: -
i. A proposal for establishment of a Greenfield International
Airport at Pune has been under consideration by the
Government of Maharashtra since the year 2005. In
September 2016, a pre-feasibility examination was
undertaken by the technical team of the Airports Authority
of India (hereinafter referred to as “AAI”) in respect of six
sites identified by the Maharashtra Airport Development
Page 4 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as “MADC”) in the
Saswad-Jejuri area. After examination of the different sites,
the site labeled as “Site 1A” at Munjewadi, Pargaon
Memane, was recommended, subject to the clearance by the
Ministry of Defence. On 20th September 2016, the AAI
communicated its approval for “Site 1A”, subject to removal
of encumbrances and issuance of necessary clearances. On
23rd January 2018, the Ministry of Defence had granted
NOC for “Site 1A”, subject to the conditions attached
thereto.
ii. The Steering Committee for Greenfield Airports had
thereafter, forwarded Site Clearance for “Site 1A” on 23 rd
April 2018, and the Ministry of Civil Aviation granted
Clearance for the said site on 8 th May 2018, subject to the
conditions stipulated by the Ministry of Defence, DGCA and
AAI. Pursuant thereto, the Government of Maharashtra, on
9th May 2018, granted administrative and financial approval
for acquisition of approximately 2,367 hectares of land for
the proposed airport. The lands owned by the Writ
Petitioners are also included in the above area of land.
Page 5 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
iii. During 2020-2021, an alternative location, being Site 5A,
also came to be considered for setting up the Greenfield
Airport. According to the Petitioners, “Site 1A” was not
found to be technically feasible and/or suitable for setting
up the Greenfield Airport. Therefore, an alternative site
earmarked as “Site 5A” was explored for the purpose and
eventually “Site 1A” was dropped in favour of “Site 5A”. It is
the case of the Petitioners that “Site 5A” was not only
technically superior as compared to “Site 1A” but also
comprised of comparatively barren land.
iv. On 9th February 2021, the MADC submitted an application
for Aerodrome Approval in respect of “Site 5A”, setting out
the technical advantages of the said site over “Site 1A” thus,
seeking cancellation of the NOC and approval earlier
granted for “Site 1A”. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) had
also granted NOC for “Site 5A” on 12 th August 2021, subject
to certain conditions attached thereto. However, the NOC
for “Site 5A” was subsequently cancelled.
v. On 29th August 2022, a meeting held under the
chairmanship of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the MIDC was
Page 6 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
directed to develop the Purandar Airport and appointed
MIDC as the nodal agency for development of the Airport
and for acquisition of land. Approval in respect of “Site 1A”
was thereafter restored on 6th May 2024. The
communication dated 6th May 2024 was, thereafter
forwarded by the Ministry of Civil Aviation to MADC on 29 th
May 2024.
vi. In the meantime, steps were undertaken for acquisition of
the land for the construction of the Airport at “Site 1A”. By
notification dated 10th March 2025 issued under Section
1(3) read with Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “MID
Act”), Chapter VI of the MID Act was applied to
approximately 2,673.982 hectares of land situated in the
aforementioned villages. On 17 th March 2025, the
Government of Maharashtra issued a Government
Resolution No. IDC 2025/(C.R.88)/IND-14 paving the way
for acquisition of land under the MID Act and for
rehabilitation and resettlement of private landowners, in
accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and
Page 7 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘RFCTLARR Act’) by recording that the land required for the
proposed airport was to be acquired under the MID Act.
vii. Public notices under Section 32(2) of the MID Act were,
thereafter, issued inviting objections from the affected
landowners. Individual notices were also issued and
hearings were conducted in respect of the objections so
received.
viii. On 20th August 2025, a survey map was prepared by MADC
demarcating the proposed airport area, comprising two 4-F
runways.
ix. On 22nd August 2025, the Collector, Pune, had passed an
order in respect of acquisition. Between 25 th August 2025
and 25th September 2025, consent letters were received in
respect of approximately 1,150.18 hectares out of 1,216.75
hectares proposed for acquisition. After consideration of the
objections and completion of the statutory process, a final
notification under Section 32(1) of the MID Act came to be
Page 8 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
issued on 9th February 2026 in respect of approximately
1,216.7522 hectares of land thus virtually completing the
process of land acquisition.
3. By filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners have basically
questioned the decision of the authorities to revert to “Site 1A”.
According to them, the proposed site suffers from technical as well
as operational limitations, including those relating to height
restrictions and flight operations. It is also the case of the
Petitioners that the proposed airport at “Site 1A” would not be safe
or viable and that other sites had been surveyed but viable
alternatives were not properly considered. The Petitioners have
also questioned the extent of land proposed to be acquired and
contend that the lands sought to be acquired are primarily
irrigated, multi-crop, agricultural lands on which the Petitioners
and other affected farmers are dependent for their livelihood.
4. The Petitioners have also challenged the process of land
acquisition, inter alia on the ground that there was no justification
for selecting the lands in question when other viable alternatives
were available. The Petitioners have contended that the
Respondents could have acquired only the bare minimum land
Page 9 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
required for the project and that the extent of land
acquired/proposed to be acquired is disproportionate to the
requirements of the proposed airport. The Petitioners have also
raised a plea as regards to the overlapping catchment area of the
proposed airport with the Navi Mumbai International Airport and
have questioned the economic and operational viability of a large
international airport at the proposed “Site 1A”.
5. Respondent No. 5–Maharashtra Airport Development
Company Limited (“MADC”) has filed affidavit in reply. In its
reply, the MADC has stated that the question of technical and/or
operational viability of “Site 1A” would fall within the domain of
the experts and the statutory authorities, including AAI, DGCA, the
Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Defence. According
to the MADC, the challenge to the viability of “Site 1A” is
substantially based on news reports, speculative apprehensions of
future events which do not have any logical basis. The MADC has
denied the assertion that “Site 1A” was unsuitable or that the NOC
for “Site 5A” was cancelled arbitrarily.
6. Respondent No. 8–Airports Authority of India (“AAI”) has
also filed affidavit in reply questioning the maintainability of the
Page 10 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
Writ Petition by contending that the decision to acquire the lands
is entirely that of the State Government of Maharashtra and MADC
and that the AAI has had no role to play either in the acquisition of
the land or in determination and disbursement of compensation.
The Respondent No. 8 has further contended that its functions and
responsibility under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994
relate to the management, operation and development of Airports
already in existence and it has no role in site selection, finalisation,
land acquisition or development and construction of new Airports
such as the proposed Airport at Purandar.
7. Respondent No. 9–Maharashtra Industrial Development
Corporation (“MIDC”) has also opposed the Petition by
questioning the maintainability of the same, inter alia, on the
ground that the final notification under Section 32(1) of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 has been issued
after compliance with Sections 32(2) and 32(3), and that the
acquisition proceedings have made substantial progress.
Therefore, there is no scope for the Court to interfere with the
land acquisition proceedings at this point of time. The Respondent
No. 9 has also taken the plea that the Petitioners have an alternate
Page 11 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
statutory remedy under Section 33 of the MID Act in respect of
determination and enhancement of compensation and other
consequential reliefs and therefore, the Writ Petition is not
maintainable due to availability of alternative remedy. As regards
the choice of “Site 1A”, the MIDC has denied that the site is
technically unviable or that its reversion from “Site 5A” was
without any change in circumstances, and submits that the
decision on siting of the airport was taken by the competent
authorities after proper technical evaluation of the proposals. The
MIDC has also denied the allegations regarding disproportionate
acquisition of land, insider transactions and abuse of power and
has submitted that the extent of land acquired was determined
after technical examination and survey made by the concerned
authorities.
8. The Petitioners had filed an Additional Affidavit in response
to the objection raised as to their locus. In their Additional
Affidavit, the Petitioners have stated that, being directly affected
by the proposed acquisition, they are entitled to raise issues
concerning the competence, location, technical feasibility and
safety of the proposed Airport, including all issues of compliance
Page 12 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
as laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
They have contended that the issues raised by the Petitioners have
not been answered by the concerned authorities, particularly the
Ministry of Civil Aviation and Ministry of Defence, which have not
filed affidavits. The Petitioners have further contended that the
Gram Panchayats were bypassed in the planning process and that
the villagers were entitled to raise all issues concerning the
location, technical feasibility and safety of the proposed Airport
which opportunity was denied to them. The Petitioners have
reiterated their earlier stand that the Airport was shifted from “Site
1A” to “Site 5A” on the ground of want of technical feasibility but
was later on brought back to “Site 1A”, without any change in the
circumstances. Therefore, the said decision was wholly arbitrary.
9. Mr. Sunip Sen, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners has submitted that the Petitioners, being the villagers
and owners of land have the locus standi to maintain the present
Writ Petition since they would be directly affected by the proposed
acquisition. It is also submitted that the challenge is not only to
the technical feasibility of the proposed Airport but also to the
Page 13 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
legality and rationality of the decision to locate the Airport at “Site
1A” and the consequent acquisition of the Petitioners’ lands.
10. Referring to the proposal dated 9th February 2021, the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has argued that “Site
5A” was found advantageous, inter alia, on account of lesser
acquisition and development costs, absence of conflict with
IAF/NDA flying operations, scope for expansion and lesser
requirement of resettlement. Therefore, unless a cogent reason is
furnished by the Respondents to revert to “Site 1A”, the decision of
reversion must be held to be totally arbitrary, whimsical and
hence, liable to be interfered with by this Court.
11. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has also
submitted that the extent of land proposed to be acquired must
have a rational nexus with the requirements of the project.
Availability of alternative sites, the nature of the lands proposed to
be acquired, the comparative economic and operational
advantages of “Site 5A” are some of the relevant considerations
which could not have been ignored by the authorities while
choosing “Site 1A”.
Page 14 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
12. The learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that
despite the order dated 23rd April 2026 passed by this Court
directing the Ministry of Civil Aviation and the Ministry of Defence
(MoD) to address the issues concerning the proposed Airport, no
substantive response has been placed on record before the Court
by the said authorities. Therefore, the siting of the Airport at “Site
1A” must be held to be arbitrary, irrational and capricious.
13. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been
placed upon by Mr. Sen upon K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v.
State of Karnataka,1 and Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v.
Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors.2, to submit that deprivation of property
under Article 300A must be by authority of law and for a genuine
public purpose and that the exercise of compulsory acquisition
would always be subject to judicial review.
14. Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, appearing for the Union of India, on the other hand, has
submitted that the Petitioners, being the affected landowners,
cannot substitute their own assessment for the technical and
1 (2011) 9 SCC 1
2 (2024) 10 SCC 533
Page 15 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
administrative decision of the competent authorities regarding
selection of the Airport site. It is also his submission that by filing
this Writ Petition the Petitioners are seeking re-examination of the
comparative suitability of “Site 1A” and “Site 5A” which, in
essence, is an attempt to reopen the expert opinion on site-
selection, with a view to obstruct the project. According to Mr.
Singh, the validity of expert opinion, unless found to be arbitrary
or actuated by malice, would ordinarily not lie in the realm of
judicial review under Article 226. It has further been submitted
that the challenge made in this Writ Petition is substantially based
on extraneous and unauthenticated material and the Petitioners
have failed to establish any valid ground warranting interference
by this Court in the matter.
15. By referring to the notification issued on 7th March 2025
and published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 10th
March 2025, which brought Chapter VI of the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Act, 1961 into operation in respect of the
lands situated in the seven villages, Ms. Neha. S. Bhide, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of
Maharashtra argued that objections were invited and considered
Page 16 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
in accordance with Section 32, culminating in the acquisition
notification dated 9th February 2026 under Section 32(1) paving
the way for acquiring 1,216.75 hectares of land for the proposed
Airport. She therefore submits that, as per Section 32(4), upon
issuance of such notification, the land would vest with the State
Government, free from all encumbrances. The question of
compensation would thereafter, be dealt with under the sub-
sections of Section 33.
16. Ms. Bhide has further submitted that since the acquisition
process has substantially progressed, reopening the process of
acquisition, consent agreements and consequential rights would
cause serious financial and administrative hurdles thus, adversely
affecting public interest in general. It has, therefore, been
submitted that there is no good ground for this Court to interfere
with the site-selection decision or the process of acquisition of land
at the instance of individual land owners, more so, when statutory
remedies are available to them to agitate their grievances, if any,
in the matter of the land acquisition proceedings.
17. Mr. Shardul Singh, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.5-MADC has submitted that the comparative
Page 17 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
suitability of “Site 1A” and “Site 5A” is essentially a matter for the
expert and administrative authorities to consider and this Court
may not have the expertise to sit in appeal over such technical
decisions. He has further submitted that “Site 5A” was merely
explored as an alternative option but was not proceeded with any
further after withdrawal of the clearance for that site by the
Ministry of Defence. Mr. Singh has further submitted that the
Ministry of Civil Aviation had subsequently reiterated and
reaffirmed the site clearance for “Site 1A”. Therefore, the
contention of the Petitioners that “Site 5A” had been finally
selected before abandoning the same is wholly incorrect and
contrary to the record. To sum up his arguments, Mr. Singh has
contended that setting up of the Airport at Purandar was necessary
in the larger public interest. Therefore, any interference by this
court in the ongoing process would delay the implementation of
the project thus adversely affecting the public interest involved in
the matter.
18. In support of their aforementioned submissions, the learned
counsel for the respondents have relied upon Union of India v.
Page 18 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
Kushala Shetty & Ors.,3 BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union
of India & Ors.,4 and Alok Kotahwala & Ors. v. Jaipur Metro Rail
Corporation Ltd. & Ors.,5 to submit that technical and policy
decisions of the competent authorities ordinarily should not be the
subject matter of judicial review and that, in the absence of mala
fides, manifest arbitrariness or illegality, the Writ Court ought not
to substitute its own assessment for that of the experts.
19. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material
available on record.
20. The Petitioners are admittedly landowners whose interests
are affected due to the process of land acquisition undertaken by
the authorities for setting up the Greenfield Airport at Purandar.
Although the Petitioners are seeking interdiction in the land
acquisition process, yet, we do not find sufficient pleadings in the
Writ Petition establishing any statutory violation in the land
acquisition proceeding. Rather, it appears that the Petitioners are
opposing the siting of the Greenfield Airport with a view to save
3 (2011) 12 SCC 69
4 (2002) 2 SCC 333
5 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1324
Page 19 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
their agricultural lands from being acquired by the State. Mr. Sen,
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, has also submitted, in
his usual fairness, that in the present Writ Petition, the basic
challenge is to the siting of the airport and the land acquisition is
being resisted by his clients on the ground that a better alternative
site was available for construction of the proposed Airport.
21. It appears from the material on record that, alternative sites
for setting up the proposed Airport have been considered at
different stages by the authorities/agencies competent to take a
decision in the matter. It is no doubt correct that initially, “Site 1A”
had received the clearances. However, at a later stage, “Site 5A”
was also explored. There is, however nothing on record to show
that “Site 5A” was ever finalized. As a matter of fact, the NOC
granted in respect of “Site 5A” was subsequently cancelled and
“Site 1A” was thereafter restored/reinstated. All these exercises,
apparently took place, at a stage when feasibility of different sites
were still being explored by the authorities and before any of the
sites were finalized.
22. The question as to which would be the best location to set
up a public infrastructure such as a Greenfield Airport will depend
Page 20 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
on several factors, the paramount consideration of which is the
public interest in general. A decision of such a nature would
depend on various considerations, the necessary input in respect
whereof would be available with the State. The executive
authorities are best equipped with the technical expertise to decide
on the alignment, location, public safety and requirement of land
for such a mega project. Therefore, the decision in such matters
would essentially lie in the domain of policy decision of the State.
Unless it is demonstrated, on the basis of cogent material placed
on record, that the decision is in bad faith or in colorable exercise
of executive power or that there is violation of mandatory
statutory provisions or non-compliance of Environmental norms,
the Writ Court would be loath to interfere in such matters. In
policy matters of this nature, the State would be the best judge to
take a decision and the Writ Court would not substitute its own
judgment for that of the technical experts or Governmental
Authorities on an issue such as “site selection” for setting up a
public infrastructure, on the spacious plea of the individual land
owners that a better, less disruptive and alternative site was
available for setting up the project. The Petitioners have failed to
Page 21 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
demonstrate that the present case falls under any of the above-
mentioned categories meriting interference by this Court.
23. The Supreme Court in Alok Kotahwala and Ors. v. Jaipur
Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Ors., (Supra) while
considering a challenge based on availability of alternative parcels
of land, has reiterated that such matters require judicial restraint
and that determination of particular parcel of land required for a
public project falls within the domain of expert planning
authorities. In doing so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had relied
upon and reiterated the principles laid down in State of Punjab v.
Gurdial Singh6 and Sooraram Pratap Reddy v. Collector 7 The
relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Alok Kotahwala
(supra), in paragraphs 76 to 79 and paragraph 81, are as follows:
“76. Appellants have then urged that several alternative
parcels of land, including lands belonging to RIICO, IOCL,
JDA and other governmental agencies, were available and
that the respondents ought to have utilised such lands
instead of acquiring the appellants' property. We are
apprehensive that such a contention traverses a domain
where judicial restraint is particularly warranted. Judicial
intervention in this regard essentially has to yield to a host of
technical and operational considerations, subsuming
alignment connectivity, maintenance logistics, future
expansion, inter alia. This position was pithily encapsulated
in State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh as follows:
6 (1980) 2 SCC 471
7 (2008) 9 SCC 552
Page 22 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
8. First, what are the facts? A grain market was the
public purpose for which government wanted land to
be acquired. Perfectly valid. Which land was to be
taken? This power to select is left to the responsible
discretion of government under the Act, subject to
Articles 14, 19 and 31 (then). The court is handcuffed
in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand against
what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in
administrative action is the property of the executive
and judicial circumspection keeps the court lock-
jawed save where power has been polluted by oblique
ends or is otherwise void on well established grounds.
The constitutional balance cannot be upset.
77. This position was reiterated in Sooraram Pratap Reddy v.
Collector as follows:
119. In our judgment, in deciding whether acquisition
is for "public purpose" or not, prima facie, the
Government is the best judge. Normally, in such
matters, a writ court will not interfere by substituting
its judgment for the judgment of the Government.
78. Quite recently, a similar view was expressed by a co-
ordinate Bench while dismissing a special leave petition vide
order dated 8th June, 2022. It was held there that public
interest being of paramount consideration, the National
Highway Authority is the best judge to decide which land is
to be acquired and which is not to be acquired for the
purpose of construction of highways.
79. Thus, the determination of the particular parcel of land
required for acquisition falls squarely within the domain of
the expert planning authorities exercising powers of eminent
domain.
80. …
81. Although the respondents have justified why the
suggested alternative lands were not suited nor available for
the intended purpose, merely because another parcel of land
may appear feasible to the landowner, the same cannot be
pressed into service by the landowner, to persuade the Court
to substitute its own opinion for that of the authorities
entrusted with the planning and execution of the project.”
Page 23 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
24. The aforesaid principles, in our view, squarely apply to the
facts of the present case as well. Whether “Site 1A” is more suitable
than “Site 5A” is a matter for the competent authorities to
determine based on a number of technical factors. In the absence
of any established ground warranting judicial interference, we see
no reason to undertake a comparative technical assessment
between different sites in exercise of our Writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
25. The Petitioners have raised some concern about the
technical feasibility and safety features of the proposed Airport.
However, in our view, these are matters which have been
sufficiently examined by the statutory authorities and/or
specialized agencies entrusted with such functions under the
statute. Materials available on record are not sufficient to sustain a
conclusion by this Court that the multiple agencies involved in the
process of setting up of an Airport including the MoD, have acted
in bad faith and ignored the safety features of the project while
selecting the project site. There is nothing to show that the
decision to proceed with “Site 1A” suffers from any manifest
arbitrariness, mala fides, or statutory violation or any
Page 24 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
demonstrable illegalities so as to justify interference by this Court.
The Petitioners’ disagreement with the assessment of the
competent authorities with regard to a particular site to setup the
Airport cannot, by itself, furnish a justifiable ground for judicial
interference, more so when multiple agencies functioning under
the Government of India including the MoD has cleared the
project.
26. It would also be apposite to refer to the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v.
Union of India & Ors., (Supra) wherein the Supreme Court has
discussed the limited scope of judicial review in matters
concerning policy decisions and public projects. Referring to its
earlier decision in Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India ,8
the Supreme Court observed in paragraphs 45 and 46 as follows:
“45. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and Ors.,
there was a challenge to the validity of the establishment of a
large dam. It was held by the majority at page 762 as follows :-
"229. It is now well settled that the Courts, in the
exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the
field of policy decision. Whether to have an
infrastructural project or not and what is the type of
project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed,
are part of policy-making process and the Courts are ill-
equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so
8 (2000) 10 SCC 664
Page 25 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
undertaken. The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that
in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and
people's fundamental rights are not transgressed upon
except to the extent permissible under the Constitution."
46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the
domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to
embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public
policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved.
Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the
behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a
different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more
scientific or more logical.”
27. Construction of a Civil Airport is a project which would
undoubtedly subserve the larger public interest. As noted above,
the choice of site, alignment, project feasibility etc., fall exclusively
within the domain of the experts. The Writ Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot sit in
appeal over such decision of the experts to decide whether such
administrative or technical decision regarding choice of site is
correct or not.
28. Siting of the airport is purely a matter of policy decision.
The State as the expropriating authority, is in the best position to
decide the suitability of the land and the extent to which the same
is required for the public project. The land owners cannot dictate
to the State as to which location would be more suitable for the
project merely because they are trying to protect their land.
Page 26 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
Therefore, by applying the ratio laid down in Narmada Bachao
Andolan (Supra) to the facts of this case, we are of the considered
opinion that, this being a policy matter, there is no legally
justifiable ground for this Court to interfere in this case.
29. As regards the validity of the acquisition proceedings is
concerned, it appears from the material on record that the
acquisition has proceeded under the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Act, 1961. Statutory notifications have been issued,
objections have been invited and considered and the notification
under Section 32(1) has also been issued. From the projections
made before this Court, it is apparent that the process of land
acquisition in respect of “Site 1A” has, by now, either been
completed or the same is at a very advanced stage. In these
circumstances, we are of the opinion that, at this stage, there is no
scope for this Court to interfere with the land acquisition
proceeding on the grounds taken in this Writ Petition.
30. Having observed as above, we, however, make it clear that
we have not expressed any opinion on the individual plea of the
land owners, if any, on the issue(s) of statutory compliances in the
land acquisition proceedings, particularly with regard to issues of
Page 27 of 28
22nd September 2026
WP-14127-2025.doc
quantum of compensation and/or disbursement and leave the
aggrieved parties (land owners) including the present Petitioners,
at liberty, to seek appropriate statutory remedy in such matter(s),
in accordance with law, if so advised.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is held to be
devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed.
32. No order as to costs.
(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
Page 28 of 28
22nd September 2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.