SC declines to hear CIDCO challenge, Bamandongri land acquisition stands

Representational Image

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