Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from interim applications filed by The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO) seeking impleadment as a respondent in two First Appeals pending before the Bombay High Court. The appeals were filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and award dated 24 March 2021 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel in Land Acquisition Reference No. 48 of 2015. The reference court had enhanced the compensation for lands acquired at Village Bokadvira, Taluka Uran, District Raigad for the New Bombay Project (Navi Mumbai development) to Rs. 1,124 per square metre along with statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The lands were originally notified under Section 4 of the Act on 24 September 1986, and an award under Section 11 was passed in 1989. Possession was handed over to CIDCO for development. The claimants, dissatisfied with the initial compensation, invoked Section 28A, relying on another reference court judgment, leading to the enhanced award. The State's appeals challenged that enhancement. CIDCO, the New Town Development Authority for Navi Mumbai, contended that it was not made a party before the reference court or in the appeals, though it bore the entire financial burden of paying compensation, solatium, interest, and any enhanced amount as per Government Resolutions dated 14 March 2008 and 12 February 2008. These resolutions required the acquiring body to be joined in all land acquisition proceedings and authorized CIDCO to contest enhancement claims. CIDCO argued that it had undertaken massive development works for Navi Mumbai and that any increase in compensation directly affected its funds, which were generated from sale of developed lands. It further pointed to orders of the Supreme Court in similar matters (SLP Civil Diary No. 42084 of 2017, order dated 20 July 2018) where the High Court's judgments were set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration, and in Civil Appeal Nos. 1564-1565 of 2016 (Babibai Babu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra) directing de novo hearing of appeals and consideration of amendment applications in light of Ambya Kalya Mhatre (2011) 9 SCC 325. The Supreme Court had also underscored the limited scope of references under Section 28A. CIDCO submitted that it was both a necessary and proper party, and its impleadment was in public interest. The applicant’s senior advocate, Mr. G.S. Hegde, argued that since CIDCO had pursued the matter before the Supreme Court and obtained remand, it should now be treated as a proper party. He also sought to distinguish the earlier decision in Percival Joseph Pareira vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 985) on the ground that the coordinate bench had not considered the burden of providing 12.5% developed land to project-affected persons. The court heard the applications and reserved judgment on 28 July 2026, but the available text of the judgment ends during the submissions and does not contain the court’s final order or reasoning.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (CIDCO), the New Town Development Authority for Navi Mumbai, should be impleaded as a party respondent in the First Appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the enhanced compensation awarded by the Reference Court under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 given that it bears the financial burden of paying such compensation and was not made a party earlier.
Law Points
- Limited scope of reference under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Acquiring body bearing financial liability may be recognized as necessary and proper party in land acquisition appeals
- Supreme Court's observations in Babibai Babu Patil v. State of Maharashtra and Ambya Kalya Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra regarding de novo consideration of amendment applications
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 213
Interim Application No. 5184 of 2026 in First Appeal No. 1987 of 2025 and Interim Application No. 5185 of 2026 in First Appeal No. 1983 of 2025
Mr. G.S. Hegde, Senior Advocate with Ms. P.M. Bhansali for applicant-CIDCO; Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional G.P. for appellant-State; Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni with Mr. Gaurav Ugale and Mr. Aryavrat Dubey for respondents-claimants
State of Maharashtra (through Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Metro Center No.1, Uran, Taluka Uran, District Raigad)
Jayprakash Janardan Patil & Anr. and Narayan Gosavi Patil (since deceased) through legal heirs Chandrabhaga Narayan Patil & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Interim applications by a development authority seeking impleadment as respondent in pending first appeals challenging enhanced compensation awarded under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for lands acquired for the Navi Mumbai project.
Remedy Sought
The applicant (CIDCO) asked the court to add it as a party respondent in the first appeals (respondent No.3 in FA 1987/2025 and respondent No.10 in FA 1983/2025) so that it could be heard regarding the enhanced compensation, as it bears the financial burden of paying such compensation.
Filing Reason
CIDCO was not made a party before the Reference Court or in the appeals, though it is liable to pay the compensation and has undertaken development works; it contends its interests are directly affected by any enhancement and it should have opportunity to oppose enhancement.
Previous Decisions
The Reference Court (Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel) in LAR No. 48 of 2015 awarded market value of Rs. 1,124 per sq. m. with statutory benefits. The State of Maharashtra filed First Appeals against that award. The Supreme Court in similar matters (SLP Diary No. 42084 of 2017) remanded cases for fresh hearing, with directions regarding limited scope of Section 28A. Also, in Babibai Babu Patil v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court directed fresh hearing of appeals and consideration of amendment application in light of Ambya Kalya Mhatre case.
Issues
Whether CIDCO, as the development authority liable to pay enhanced compensation, should be impleaded as a party in the First Appeals filed by the State of Maharashtra challenging the Reference Court's award?
Whether the financial burden on CIDCO and its role in development make it a necessary or proper party in land acquisition appeals?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant CIDCO argued that it is the New Town Development Authority for Navi Mumbai, responsible for paying enhanced compensation under Government Resolutions, and was not made party earlier; thus it should be added as party.
Applicant contended that Supreme Court in similar matters involving CIDCO set aside High Court judgments and remanded, recognizing CIDCO's interest, and thus CIDCO is a proper party in present appeals.
Applicant referred to Government Resolutions dated 14-03-2008 and 12-02-2008 requiring the acquiring body to be joined in all land acquisition proceedings and authorizing CIDCO to contest enhancement claims.
Applicant submitted that the Reference Court did not properly determine market value and that its funds are directly impacted, so it should be heard before any order granting enhanced compensation.
Applicant cited that the Coordinate Bench in Percival Joseph Pareira did not consider the burden of providing 12.5% developed land to project affected persons as part of compensation, distinguishing that case.
Judgment Excerpts
The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that in matters arising under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the High Court should keep in mind the limited scope of a reference under that provision.
According to these Government Resolutions, whenever land is acquired for a particular acquiring body, that body should be joined as a party in all land acquisition proceedings.
the enhanced compensation payable in land acquisition cases is also paid from the money received by selling such lands. Therefore, according to the applicant, every increase in compensation directly affects the funds available for development of Navi Mumbai.
Procedural History
Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act issued on 24-09-1986. Award under Section 11 passed in 1989. Possession handed over to CIDCO. Land Acquisition Reference No. 48 of 2015 filed. Reference Court (Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Panvel) passed judgment and award on 24-03-2021, granting enhanced compensation at Rs. 1,124 per sq. m. State of Maharashtra filed First Appeals (FA 1987/2025 and 1983/2025) challenging the award. Similar matters were taken to Supreme Court; by order dated 20-07-2018 in SLP (C) Diary No. 42084 of 2017, Supreme Court remanded cases for fresh hearing. CIDCO filed interim applications for impleadment in these appeals (IA 5184/2026 and 5185/2026). The applications were heard and judgment reserved on 28-07-2026, pronounced on 31-07-2026.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 4, 11, 18, 23(1A), 23(2), 28, 28A, 28A(3)
