Purandar Airport Acquisition Cleared – Landowners Cannot Dictate Locatin

On 29th August 2022, a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, the MIDC was 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 29th 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 17th 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 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

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 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.

The question as to which would be the best location to set up a public infrastructure such as a Greenfield Airport will depend 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 demonstrate that the present case falls under any of the above mentioned categories meriting interference by this Court.

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. 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.

Judgment dated 23.9.2026 of the High Court of Bombay  in Writ Petition No.14127 of 2025 of Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar and others   Vs.  The State of Maharashtra and others