“Contradictory Affidavits, False Claims, Fabricated Awards – Land Acquisition Vitiated”: Bombay High Court Quashes CIDCO Acquisition for Breach of Legal Process

“This is a case of no explanation at best, and false explanation at worst… State has been far from candid with the Court” - In a scathing judgment delivered on 24 March 2025, the Bombay High Court (Justices M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain) quashed the land acquisition proceedings by CIDCO for a proposed township near Panvel (Raigad District), citing breach of mandatory legal requirements, non-obtaining of prior government approval, and attempts to manipulate official records. The Court found that the State had filed false affidavits, produced conflicting awards, and deliberately concealed material facts, warranting a full annulment of the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act.

“If award was passed on 7 April 2015, how could approval be obtained only on

27 May 2015?” – Court Rejects Government’s Case  

The landowners, whose lands were compulsorily acquired, challenged the acquisition on the grounds that the awards were passed without mandatory prior approval under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and outside the two-year limit prescribed under Section 11A.  

The Court noted the State’s contradictory stand on award dates. At one stage, the government claimed the final award was dated 7 April 2015, yet its own documents showed that the draft award was approved only on 27 May 2015 by the Divisional Commissioner. This created a chronological impossibility:

 “It defies comprehension how this award could be made before the Divisional Commissioner approved the comprehensive draft award… This is a case of no explanation at best, and false explanation at worst.”

 “State has been far from candid… affidavits filed concealed more than they revealed”  

The Court found the State’s conduct deeply problematic, observing that multiple affidavits were filed with conflicting dates, and even basic clarity on whether the award was final or draft was missing.  

“Affidavits are filed, making one set of statements and, finding that such statements are not convenient, further affidavits are filed stating that the previous affidavits were incorrect… The State has been far from candid with the Court.”

 In one affidavit, the award was dated 9 May 2015. Another said 7 April 2015. The Section 12(2) notices referred to 7 April, even though the consolidated award was only approved weeks later.

 The Court concluded:

“There is merit in the contention that the award was made without the prior approval of the Divisional Commissioner, who was the prescribed authority. Such award is void and non-est.”  

Acquisition Declared Lapsed for Violation of Section 11A – Delay of Over 3 Years

 The Court further held that even assuming the acquisition was validly initiated, the award was made beyond the two-year period allowed under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates lapse if an award is not made within two years of the declaration under Section 6.  

“The Petitioners have established that the awards were made beyond the periods prescribed… This acquisition has to be declared lapsed.”  

The delay, in this case, was over three years, with the Section 6 declaration issued in June 2012 and the alleged award surfacing in April or May 2015.

  CIDCO and State Cannot Evade Compliance by Claiming MRTP Act is a

“Complete Code”  

The State and CIDCO argued that the acquisition was under the MRTP Act, and not the Land Acquisition Act, and hence Sections 11 and 11A do not apply.

They relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Girnar Traders (3).

 However, the High Court distinguished that ruling, noting:

 “Girnar Traders (3) dealt with acquisitions under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act.

The present acquisition is under Section 113A, which falls under Chapter VI.

There is a marked distinction.”

 The Court reasoned that acquisitions under Section 113A expressly refer to being conducted under the Land Acquisition Act or the 2013 Act, and thus the procedural safeguards of those Acts, including mandatory prior approval and time limits, would apply.

On Petitioners’ Demand for 20% Developed Land:  

The Court also considered the alternative relief sought — that if the acquisition could not be quashed, the Petitioners be allotted 20% of the developed land, as per the 2013 Act and applicable Government Resolutions.

 However, having quashed the acquisition itself, the Court found this relief infructuous. But it underscored that such a claim would have been meritorious under Section 31 and the Second Schedule of the 2013 Act, had the acquisition survived.  

The Bombay High Court quashed the land acquisition proceedings, holding:

“The Petitioners have demonstrated that the mandatory requirements under the Land Acquisition Act were breached with impunity… The acquisition is thus vitiated.”

 The Court’s ruling sets a critical precedent on government accountability, mandatory procedure in land acquisition, and candour in judicial proceedings. It reinforces that legal processes cannot be cured by afterthoughts, fabricated affidavits, or shifting stands.

Date of Decision: 24 March 2025