Archive · 25 Sep 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Purandar Airport Site 1A Decision
Three farmers asked the Bombay High Court to stop an airport from being built at Site 1A.
They said another place, called Site 5A, would be better because it would affect less farmland.
The farmers also said their land was irrigated and important for growing multiple crops.
The court said choosing a location for a very large airport is mainly a decision for the government and technical experts.
It said Site 5A had been considered but was never finally chosen.
The court found that the government had restored Site 1A after cancelling the approval for Site 5A.
It also noted that the land acquisition process had already moved forward substantially.
The farmers’ petition was dismissed, but they may still use legal remedies about compensation and other statutory issues.
The Bombay High Court dismissed three farmers’ challenge to Purandar Airport Site 1A.
The farmers argued that alternative Site 5A would require less acquisition and affect less productive farmland.
The court said airport location is a policy decision for technical experts and the State.
It found no final selection of Site 5A and noted that its earlier approval had been cancelled.
The court did not decide individual claims involving statutory compliance, compensation or payment remedies.
- Who
- Three Purandar farmers challenged the Maharashtra government’s airport-site decision; the Bombay High Court heard the case.
- What
- The court dismissed the challenge to Purandar Greenfield Airport Site 1A and the related land acquisition.
- When
- September 24, 2026.
- Where
- The case was decided by the Bombay High Court; the proposed airport is in the Purandar area of Maharashtra.
- Why
- The farmers sought to protect their agricultural land and argued that Site 5A was a better alternative, while the court held that airport siting is primarily a policy decision for the State and technical experts.
Farmers’ Position
State and Court’s Position
Airport site selection
Farmers’ Position
Site 5A was allegedly preferable because it involved less land acquisition and development costs, fewer rehabilitation concerns and more barren land.
State and Court’s Position
The court said Site 5A was never finally selected and that technical experts and the State are best equipped to determine the location of a major airport.
Impact on farmland
Farmers’ Position
Site 1A would affect irrigated, multi-crop agricultural land that farmers depend on for their livelihoods.
State and Court’s Position
The court held that the State is best placed to determine the suitability of land and the amount required for the public project.
Judicial intervention
Farmers’ Position
The farmers challenged the site decision and related acquisition through a court petition.
State and Court’s Position
The court said intervention would require evidence of bad faith, colourable exercise of power, statutory violations or non-compliance with environmental norms, which it did not find on the record.
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Bench
- Justices Suman Shyam and Advait Sethna
- Petitioners
- Three farmers from Purandar
- Preferred site
- Site 1A
- Alternative site cited
- Site 5A
- Acquisition law
- Maharashtra Industrial Development Act
- Case outcome
- Petition dismissed with no order as to costs
- Unresolved issues
- Individual claims concerning statutory compliance, compensation and compensation disbursement