The of Judicature at Bombay has quashed a series of government notifications and show-cause notices that sought to compulsorily acquire 84 hectares of land currently held by . In a significant judgment, a Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat ruled that the state’s attempt to transfer the land for a private wellness project constituted a , particularly given that the land was already being utilised for a critical public utility project.
The disputed land, located near the Thokarwadi Dam and Reservoir in Pune, has been under TPCL’s possession for over a century, serving as the catchment area for the existing 75 MW Bhivpuri Hydro Station. Furthermore, the land is central to the upcoming 1,000 MW Bhivpuri Pumped Storage Project, a key component of the state’s renewable energy initiative. The Maharashtra government, in conjunction with the , had initiated proceedings to declare the area an industrial zone under the , with the express intent of handing it over to the .
The foundation had proposed an “Ultra Mega Project,” encompassing an Ayurvedic wellness centre, medical colleges, and research facilities. While the state defended the move as being in the public interest—claiming it would generate approximately 1,000 local jobs and promote traditional medicine—the court found the legal methodology suspect. The state had attempted to employ a “pass-through” method of acquisition, whereby the compensation costs were to be borne by the private entity, MVF, rather than the state or the MIDC.
“The facts of the present case indicate that recourse to the provisions of the MID Act and the aforesaid manner in which the higher authorities of respondent-State and respondent-MIDC have sought to acquire the subject piece of land of 84 hectares, is more for benefiting the private entity, respondent No.6-MVF, for its private enterprise at the expense of the aforesaid activity for i.e. generating hydro electric power of the petitioner-TPCL,” the court observed in its ruling.
The court further dismantled the argument that the petition was premature. The state had urged the court to allow the proceedings to continue before the , who had closed the matter for orders. Rejecting this, the bench held that the entire administrative process had been tainted by a predetermined mindset at the highest levels of the government.
Quoting established legal precedents regarding administrative fairness, the bench noted, “In the overall view of the matter more particularly in the peculiar facts of the case, we have reached the conclusion that asking the appellant herein to file his reply to the show cause notice and then await the final order which may perhaps go against him, leaving him with no option but to challenge the same before the jurisdictional will be nothing but an .”
The legal battle highlighted the stark difference between the rigorous safeguards of the , and the more flexible provisions of the MID Act. By attempting to use the latter, the state sought to bypass mandatory procedures intended to protect landowners whose property is already earmarked for established public projects. The court found that the MID Act, while a specialized tool for industrial development, could not be repurposed to facilitate the transfer of private property for a single company’s benefit when no genuine "" was demonstrated beyond incidental economic development.
TPCL’s successful challenge was underpinned by evidence that the 84 hectares were not “unutilised surplus land.” The petitioner argued that the land was essential for the expansion of its pumped storage capacity, a project that had already reached the stage with the state government itself. The contradictory position of the state—simultaneously signing an MOU for a 1,000 MW power project while seeking to acquire the project’s vital land—was viewed by the court as a significant indicator of arbitrary action.
The court also dismissed claims regarding the aesthetic and spiritual benefits of the proposed wellness centre, noting that the foundation already possessed 126 hectares of adjacent land. The demand for an additional 84 hectares, particularly the two land outcrops within the dam reservoir, was deemed unnecessary for the viability of the project and potentially detrimental to the security and operational safety of the existing hydro-electric installations.
The judgment formally quashed the notifications and the subsequent show-cause notices issued by the SDO. The court’s order effectively halts the acquisition proceedings, ensuring that the catchment areas for the Bhivpuri Hydro Station remain under TPCL’s management, thereby shielding the land from conversion into a private commercial complex. The matter stands resolved as the court concluded that the state authorities failed to meet the constitutional threshold required to justify the displacement of an ongoing public utility to facilitate a private investment.
Colourable exercise of power - Public purpose
