‘Landowners can’t dictate’: Bombay High Court clears path for Pune airport project

Justices Suman Shyam and Advait M Sethna stated that the choice of site for the airport, alignment, project feasibility etc., would fall exclusively within the domain of the experts.

According to the judgment, a proposal for the construction of Greenfield International Airport at Pune had been pending with the Maharashtra Government since 2005. In September 2016, after due examination of six locations identified by the Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (MADC) for construction of the airport, the site labelled as “site IA” at Munjewadi, Pargaon, Memane, was recommended for the airport.

The farmers were challenging the decision of the authorities concerned to locate the new airport at “site IA”, which included the agricultural lands owned by them in Munjewadi, Ekatpur, Pargaon, Kumbharvalan, Vanpuri, Udachiwadi and Khanawadi villages of Takula Purandar in the Pune District of Maharashtra. Additionally, the farmers also sought directions from the court to stop the process of land acquisition initiated for the construction of the proposed airport.

The farmers claimed that “the proposed site suffers from technical as well as operational limitations, including those relating to height restrictions and flight operations” and that an airport at the location concerned would not be safe or viable and that other viable alternatives were not properly considered.

The farmers further questioned the extent of land proposed to be acquired and contended that the “lands that sought to be acquired are primarily irrigated, multi-crop, agricultural lands on which the petitioners (the farmers) and other affected farmers are dependent for their livelihood“.

Alternate location

Senior Advocate Sunip Kumar Sen and advocate Akshay Kolse Patil appeared for the farmers and submitted that the challenge was not only to the “technical feasibility” of the proposed airport but also to the “legality and rationality of the decision to locate the airport at ‘Site IA’ and the consequent acquisition of the petitioners’ (the farmers’) lands”. The counsel further urged that “the extent of land proposed to be acquired must have a rational nexus with the requirements of the project”.

The counsel contended that an alternate location was found better because of lesser land acquisition, development costs, scope for expansion and lesser requirement of resettlement and unless a convincing reason was given by the authorities to choose ‘site IA’, the decision of authorities “must be held to be totally arbitrary, whimsical” and hence, “should be interfered with by this court“.

Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Singh and advocate Aditya Thalekar representing the central government argued that the farmers cannot “substitute their own assessment for the technical and administrative decision of the competent authorities regarding selection of the airport site”. The counsel pointed out that the farmers were seeking re-evaluation of the comparative suitability of both the locations, which was an attempt to reopen the expert opinion on site selection.

Government Advocate Neha S Bhide and advocate PP Kakade, appearing for the Maharashtra government, urged that since the land acquisition process had “substantially progressed”, reopening the process would create serious financial and administrative hurdles and adversely affect public interest in general.

Advocates Shardul Singh and Smeet Savla, appearing for MADC, submitted that the comparative suitability of both the locations was a matter for expert and administrative authorities to consider and the court might not have the expertise “to sit in appeal over such technical decisions”.

‘Domain of state’

The high court stated that “it appears that the petitioners (the farmers) are opposing the siting of the Greenfield Airport with a view to save their agricultural lands from being acquired by the state“.

The bench observed that “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”.

Further the high court was of the view that unless it was showed on the basis of convincing evidence that the decision of the authorities was in bad faith or in misuse of executive power or that there was a violation of law or non-compliance of environmental norms, the court would “be loath to interfere in such matters”.

Regarding the “technical feasibility” and “safety features” concern about the proposed airport, the high court said that the issues have been “sufficiently examined by the statutory authorities and/or specialised agencies entrusted with such functions”. While dismissing the plea, the high court noted that the land acquisition proceedings were undertaken as per law and were “at a very advanced stage”, therefore, there was “no scope” to interfere with the land acquisition proceedings.