A Bench of Justices MS Sonak and Jitendra Jain ruled in favor of 16
landowners from Vahal village, Panvel Taluka, Raigad district, emphasizing the
importance of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution. The Court
noted that while property rights are no longer fundamental rights, they remain
constitutional and human rights.
The acquisition process began with a notification under Section 4 on
December 7, 2013, followed by a declaration under Section 6 on May 20, 2015.
However, the Court found that authorities had failed to conduct the mandatory
inquiry under Section 5A, which grants landowners the right to object before
their land is acquired.
The petitioners argued that no urgency notification under Section 17 had
been issued to bypass the inquiry, and they were denied a fair hearing. CIDCO
contended that the petitioners had delayed their challenge and that the airport
project was of public importance. However, the Court rejected CIDCO’s argument,
stating that compliance with Section 5A was not a mere technicality but a legal
necessity.
The Bench held that the absence of a valid urgency notification under
Section 17 rendered the Section 6 declaration null and void. It also stressed
that the right to be heard must be meaningful and not a mere formality.
Following the judgment, the State sought a stay, but the Court refused,
stating that granting a stay would effectively nullify the interim relief
granted to the petitioners.
Legal representation included Senior Advocate AV Anturkar with advocates
Sachin S Punde and Kaustubh Patil for the petitioners, Additional Government
Pleaders AI Patel and MS Bane for the State, Senior Advocate GS Hegde with
advocate Pinky Bhansali for CIDCO, and Senior Advocate Atul Damle with advocate
Sachin K Hande for the intervenor-allottees.
