Back
Rules Site Selection For Purandar Airport Is Of State
In a significant ruling that paves the way for the proposed Greenfield Airport at Purandar, the has dismissed a petition filed by three farmers challenging the selection of “Site 1A” and the subsequent land acquisition process. A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that the choice of airport site is a falling exclusively within the domain of technical experts and the State, and that landowners cannot dictate an alternative location merely to protect their agricultural holdings.
Farmers’ Challenge Dismissed
The petitioners, Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar, Vikas Kaluram Kumbharkar, and Chandrashekhar Dinkar Memane, owned agricultural land in seven villages of Purandar taluka. They contended that “Site 1A” suffered from technical and operational limitations, including height restrictions and safety concerns, and that a better alternative, “Site 5A,” had been identified earlier. They argued that the reversion to Site 1A was arbitrary and that the acquisition of over 1,200 hectares of irrigated, multi-crop land was disproportionate to the project’s needs.
The Legal Battle
The farmers sought a to quash the site decision and a to halt all acquisition proceedings. However, the court noted that the petitioners’ principal challenge was to the siting of the airport, with the opposition to acquisition being a means to protect their land.
The State, , , and the opposed the petition, arguing that site selection is a technical matter best left to experts and that the acquisition process under the , had substantially progressed. They submitted that interference would delay a project of immense public importance.
State vs Landowners
The court observed that the pleadings did not establish any in the land acquisition process. Instead, the farmers were “opposing the siting of the Greenfield Airport with a view to save their agricultural lands from being acquired by the State.”
Senior counsel for the petitioners had fairly conceded that the basic challenge was to the airport’s location. The court found no evidence that “Site 5A” was ever finally selected; the for that site had been cancelled and Site 1A was subsequently reinstated after due evaluation.
Court’s Reasoning
The bench relied on the ’s decisions in , , and to underscore the limited scope of in policy matters. The court emphasised that it cannot substitute its own judgment for that of technical experts on issues such as site selection, alignment, and land requirement.
“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,” the court stated.
Key Observations
The bench made several pivotal observations:
“Siting of the airport is purely a matter of . The state, as the , is in the best position to decide the suitability of the land and the extent to which the same is required for the public project. The landowners cannot dictate to the state as to which location would be more suitable for the project merely because they are trying to protect their land.”
“The would not substitute its own judgment for that of the technical experts or Governmental Authorities on an issue such as ‘site selection’ for setting up a public infrastructure, on the spacious plea of the individual land owners that a better, less disruptive and alternative site was available for setting up the project.”
The Verdict and Its Impact
The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, noting that the acquisition process was at a very advanced stage, with the final notification under already issued. However, it clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on individual grievances regarding statutory compliance or compensation, leaving landowners free to pursue appropriate .
The ruling clears a major legal hurdle for the Purandar airport project, which has been under consideration since 2005 and is expected to serve the growing aviation needs of Pune and the surrounding region. The decision reaffirms that courts will not interfere with expert policy decisions in public infrastructure projects unless there is demonstrable bad faith, illegality, or violation of mandatory norms.
