Friday, Apr 19, 2024 | Last Update : 03:38 AM IST
Airport land acquisition termed illegal by HC
The state had disbursed Rs 16.79 crore for the same and had spent a total of Rs 30 crore for the development of the acquired land.
Mumbai: Terming the issuance of an urgency notice to get land for an airport at Nagpur ‘illegal’, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has directed the state government to hear the pleas of the petitioners whose land was allegedly taken over by the government forcefully for development of an airport. The government had issued urgency or emergency notice for taking over 59.6 hectares of land in 2009 but failed to utilise the land following which the petition was filed by two petitioners whose land was taken over.
A division bench of Justice P.B. Varale and Justice Z.A. Haq was hearing a writ petition filed by Suretech Hospital and Research Centre and Vignaharta Builders and Developers against Maharashtra Airport Development Company and the state government for invoking the urgency clause of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and taking over 59.50 hectares of land for the Nagpur Airport Development project.
Apart from this, the petition also alleged that the acquired land was not for airport expansion but rehabilitation of project-affected persons and hence the urgency clause was not necessary but was used nevertheless. The petition also challenged the procedure and sought for reinstatement of the land.
The counsel for the respondent argued that the land was acquired under the Maharashtra Project-Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and the petitioners did not come under the purview of the Act hence they could not lodge grievances against the acquisition. The counsel further submitted a sworn affidavit by Subhash Chahande of the Airport Development authority wherein a total of 99 land owners were affected by the acquisition. The state had disbursed Rs 16.79 crore for the same and had spent a total of Rs 30 crore for the development of the acquired land. The disputed land comprised of 4.69 per cent of the acquired land.
After hearing both sides, the bench relied on similar cases decided upon by the Supreme Court and observed that the acquisition suffered from infirmities.
