Family from Navi Mumbai may get ₹3,176 cr for airport land
HC held that family’s land was never vested with state, Cidco has four months to pay
MUMBAI: If the conservative estimate of Rs50,000 per sqm of land is taken into consideration, the City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco) will have to shell out more than Rs3,176crore to compensate the Biwalkar family for the acquisition of their 157acre plot of land, which has been earmarked for the proposed Navi Mumbai airport.
Acting on a petition filed by members of the family, the Bombay high court on Tuesday held that the land was never vested with the government and the owners were entitled to compensation as per the prevailing Cidco scheme.
The division bench of justice Anoop Mohta and justice Amjad Sayed has now directed Cidco to complete the formalities for acquisition of the property within four months and pay appropriate compensation
to the Biwalkars.
The land owned by the Biwalkar family forms a part of the land earmarked for the international airport proposed to be constructed by Cidco in Navi Mumbai. Earlier, on February 2, 2012, the high court had paved the way for development of the airport by allowing Cidco to hand over the 157-acre plot to the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
Till then, Cidco could not hand over the property to the AAI because of a high court directive asking it to maintain status quo as on April 8, 2010 with respect to handing over the huge tract of land to anybody else. Further progress of the proposed greenfield international airport had been held up because of the directive issued on a petition filed by Gangadhar Narayan Bivalkar and his younger brother Yashwant, heirs of the erstwhile rulers of Kalyan, who had claimed title over the property.
But the earlier petition was disposed of on the basis of the statement made by the government admitting title of Biwalkar family over the property after the family moved a fresh petition. The state then sought permission to withdraw the statement, as was based on instructions given contrary to the rules of business.
In February 2012, the court allowed the government to withdraw it, but protected the family’s interest by clarifying that in case their claim of ownership was upheld, the state would acquire by paying them appropriate compensation.