Navi Mumbai Airport: SC stays Bombay HC order on compensation to Bivalkar family
As per the HC order, the Bivalkars are entitled to get 20 acres of the 157-acre land that will be developed
Sanjay Jog Mumbai State-run City and Industrial Development Corporation (Cidco), nodal agency for the development of the Navi Mumbai international airport, has got a much-needed respite after the Supreme Court recently gave an interim stay on the Bombay High Court order directing the agency to pay compensation to Pune-based architect Yashwant Bivalkar and his family for a 157-acre land parcel at Ulwe village, near Panvel.
According to the high court order, Cidco has to give the Bivalkars 12.5 per cent of developed land in the area as compensation; that is, about 20 acres of developed land, valued at nearly Rs 1,200 crore.
The high court in its order last year had criticised the state government and Cidco for the alleged irregularities in land acquisition and for making frivolous pleas to deny compensation.
Cidco Vice-Chairman and Managing Director Sanjay Bhatia told Business Standard, “The Supreme Court has given an interim stay on the Bombay High Court order on Cidco’s special leave petition. For the moment, Cidco is entitled to not pay any compensation to Bivalkar and his family. The date for the next hearing is not yet known.’’
Another CIDCO official said the airport project would not get delayed because of the ongoing legal battle, as the 157-acre land has been in government’s possession since 1970. The official said there was no question of returning the land to Bivalkar and family.
Before approaching the apex court, CIDCO conducted a comprehensive scrutiny of land records of the past 200 years.
CIDCO in December last year received a request for qualification from GMR Delhi, the GVK-led Mumbai International Airport Ltd, the Zurich Airport with Hiranandani Developers, and MIA Infrastructure of France (which developed the Vinci airport in France) along with Tata Realty.
Bivalkar and his family argued the land had been transferred to CIDCO without their knowledge and, therefore, had fought a court battle since 1989 for fair compensation. When contacted, the Bivalkars declined to comment.