The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by three agriculturists challenging the selection of “Site 1A” for the proposed Greenfield Airport at Purandar in Pune and the consequential acquisition of agricultural land. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna on September 22, 2026.
The petitioners, who own agricultural land in villages including Munjewadi, Pargaon, Kumbharvalan, Vanpuri, Udachiwadi and Khanawadi, challenged the authorities’ decision to proceed with Site 1A. They sought to stop the acquisition and urged the authorities to consider other possible locations for the proposed airport.
The airport project has been under consideration since 2005. Site 1A received approval from the Airports Authority of India in 2016 and a Ministry of Defence NOC in 2018. An alternative, Site 5A, was subsequently explored during 2020-21, but its NOC was later cancelled and Site 1A was restored in 2024.
Meanwhile, the land acquisition process moved forward under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. Notices were issued to affected landowners, objections were considered, and a final notification for acquisition of approximately 1,216.75 hectares was issued on February 9, 2026.
The petitioners argued that Site 5A had technical and operational advantages and that the authorities had not adequately explained the return to Site 1A. The respondents maintained that site selection involved technical and policy considerations falling within the domain of specialised authorities.
The High Court noted that Site 5A had been explored but was never finally selected. Its clearance was subsequently cancelled, while Site 1A was restored. The Court held that it would not undertake a comparative technical assessment of competing airport sites in writ jurisdiction without a legally established ground for interference.
The Bench observed:
“The Writ Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot sit in appeal over such decision of the experts to decide whether such administrative or technical decision regarding choice of site is correct or not.”
The Court further found that the material before it did not establish bad faith, manifest arbitrariness, statutory violation or demonstrable illegality in proceeding with Site 1A.
The Court held that the airport’s site selection was a policy matter and that the acquisition process had substantially progressed after statutory notifications and consideration of objections. It therefore found no ground to interfere with the proceedings at that stage.
The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the individual pleas concerning statutory compliance, particularly with regard to compensation and/or disbursement. It left the aggrieved landowners at liberty to seek appropriate statutory remedies in accordance with law.
For these reasons, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court also directed that there would be no order as to costs.
Case Title: Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 14127 of 2025
