The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge by farmers to the selection of “Site 1A” for the proposed Greenfield Airport at Purandar, Pune, holding that the choice of site, alignment and project feasibility fall within the domain of experts and the State's policy decision. The Court observed that it would not substitute its own assessment for that of technical experts or Government authorities in the absence of bad faith, colourable exercise of executive power, statutory violation or non-compliance with environmental norms.

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by three agriculturists challenging the decision to locate the proposed Greenfield Airport at “Site 1A” and seeking to halt the land acquisition process. The petitioners questioned the extent of land proposed to be acquired and contended that the lands sought to be acquired are primarily irrigated, multi-crop, agricultural lands on which the Petitioners and other affected farmers are dependent for their livelihood.

The Petitioners further submitted that the Airport was shifted from “Site 1A” to “Site 5A” on the ground of want of technical feasibility but was later on brought back to “Site 1A”, without any change in the circumstances, and the said decision was wholly arbitrary.

The Court noted that the pleadings do not establish any statutory violation in the land acquisition proceeding. Rather, the Petitioners are opposing the siting of the Greenfield Airport with a view to save their agricultural lands from being acquired by the State.

Regarding the contention around “Site 5A,” the Court observed that there was nothing on record to show that Site 5A had ever been finally selected. It observed that the different sites were considered at stages when feasibility was still being examined by the competent authorities.

The Court held that the question of which location would be suitable for a Greenfield Airport depended on several factors and that the executive authorities were best equipped with the technical expertise to decide. It observed:

“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. Therefore, the decision in such matters.”

The Court underlined that unless bad faith, colourable exercise of executive power, violation of mandatory statutory provisions or non-compliance with environmental norms was demonstrated through cogent material, the Writ Court would not interfere.

“… the Writ Court 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 Court remarked.

The Court held that construction of a civil airport served the larger public interest and that the choice of site was within the domain of experts and constituted a policy decision. The Court emphasized that the land owners 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.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Case Title: Pandit Shivaji Kumbharkar v. The State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 14127 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order