In a landmark judgment delivered on 5 May 2026, the Bombay High Court has delivered a stinging blow to CIDCO and the State of Maharashtra, exposing how a small 280 sq.m. plot in Survey No.106/6, Village Karave, Navi Mumbai, was conveniently “forgotten” during the 1980s land acquisition drive for the new city.
Petitioner Roshan Shrikant Tandel approached the court after discovering that while the government had issued Section 4 notification on 24 September 1986 and Section 6 declaration on 14 September 1987 for acquiring land for Navi Mumbai, his specific plot was never included in the compensation award declared on 31 August 1989. The award mentioned the land on page 1 but completely omitted it from the valuation and compensation calculations on page 4. Even the possession receipt (kabjepavti) dated 9 July 1990 did not cover this plot. No compensation was ever paid, and possession was never legally taken.
The State and CIDCO admitted these facts in their reply affidavits. Yet they tried to wriggle out by claiming “computational error,” delay and laches, and offered only old 1894 Act compensation plus some interest and developed plots.
Justice Manish Pitale, writing for the Division Bench (along with Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat), tore apart the respondents’ defence. The court held that because no award was passed for this specific land within two years of the Section 6 declaration, the entire acquisition proceedings lapsed by operation of law under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as far back as 13 September 1989.
The judges rejected CIDCO’s “computational error” argument, noting that unlike previous cases cited by the corporation, here there was zero computation, zero payment, and zero legal possession. The court also dismissed the delay plea, observing that the petitioner was a minor at the time, his mother was an illiterate widow, and the State itself had conceded the factual position.
Relying heavily on Article 300-A of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024), the High Court held that no person can be deprived of property except by authority of law. CIDCO’s subsequent demarcation and development of the plot cannot override the petitioner’s constitutional right.
In a decisive order, the court declared that the 1986-87 acquisition for this plot has lapsed. Instead of ordering physical return of the already-developed land (which would cause practical complications), the Bench directed CIDCO and the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and complete the process — including determination and payment of compensation — within one year (by 5 May 2027).
This judgment is a massive victory for landowners and sends a clear message: the State and its agencies cannot play fast and loose with private property rights for decades and then hide behind technicalities.
Also Read: CIDCO Homes to Become 10% Cheaper
