In a significant development in Navi Mumbai’s long-running land acquisition dispute, the Supreme Court on March 16 declined to hear CIDCO’s challenge to the Bombay High Court’s 2025 ruling, effectively lending it finality for now.
The case involves landowners from Bamandongri, Ulwe, and nearby villages, whose lands were acquired for township development. While the high court upheld the acquisition, it flagged serious procedural lapses and ensured limited relief for affected landowners. When contacted CIDCO officials refused to comment on the matter.
Where the process came under scrutiny
Award confusion
Multiple dates recorded:
>> April 7, May 2 (draft), May 9, 2015
>> Process appears to have continued till late May
Court’s red flags
Contradictory official records
>> Possible lack of prior approvals
>> Indications of document manipulation
>> Misleading statements by officials
What the court held
Despite noting irregularities, the high court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Girnar Traders (3):
>> MRTP Act overrides restrictive provisions of land laws
>> Procedural violations alone cannot invalidate acquisition
What each side argued
Petitioners
>> Senior Counsel AV Anturkar alleged procedural violations and manipulation
>> Said Girnar Traders ruling does not apply to new townships
>> Sought 20 per cent developed land under 2014 policies
State
>> Senior Counsel AI Patel clarified acquisition carried out under the MRTP Act
>> Said land laws were only procedural
>> Maintained rules were followed
CIDCO
>> MRTP Act overrides land acquisition laws
>> Urgency clause validates process
>> No grounds to cancel acquisition
Urgency clause
Section 17 invoked
Section 5A hearings bypassed
Key timeline
Section 4 notification
Section 6 declaration
New law comes into force
Notices still issued under old law
What triggered the dispute
Landowners vs acquisition
Challenge to compulsory acquisition
Alleged violations under the 1894 and 2013 land laws
Demand for cancellation or 20 per cent developed land
Relief for landowners
>> Claim for 20 per cent developed land to be considered
>> Hearing must be granted
>> Decision within three months
Action against official
>> Departmental inquiry ordered
>> Allegations include record fabrication and misleading affidavits
>> Timeline: six months
Interim protection
>> Possession stayed for 10 weeks
>> Allowed petitioners to approach the Supreme Court
>> SC refusal now ends that window
