Bombay High Court Quashes Maharashtra's Move To Acquire 84 Acres Of Tata Power Land For Private Foundation

The Bombay High Court on Thursday quashed the Maharashtra Government's notifications and acquisition proceedings seeking to acquire 84 hectares of land belonging to Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL) near Thokarwadi Dam in Pune.

The land was sought to be transferred to the Maharishi Vedoddharak Foundation (MVF), a private entity, for its proposed project.

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat held that the State authorities had improperly invoked the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, bypassing the procedure prescribed under the general land acquisition law.

Holding that the acquisition was primarily intended to benefit a private entity at the expense of TPCL's existing hydroelectric projects, the bench ruled:

"In view of the above discussion, we find that the petitioner- TPCL has made out a strong case in its favour, while challenging the impugned actions of respondent-State authorities and respondent-MIDC. The manner in which the subject land admeasuring 84 hectares, which is still a part of the hydro electric projects of the petitioner-TPCL, is sought to be acquired and handed over to respondent-MVF, which is a private entity, cannot be sustained and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed."

The dispute concerned approximately 84 hectares of land, including two land outcrops in the Thokarwadi Dam reservoir. The land had been transferred to TPCL's predecessor between 1911 and 1930 for establishing hydroelectric projects. TPCL operates the 75 MW Bhivpuri Hydro Station and is also developing a proposed 1,000 MW Bhivpuri Pumped Storage Project under a Memorandum of Understanding executed with the State Government on August 8, 2023.

Maharishi Vedoddharak Foundation had already been allotted approximately 126 hectares of adjoining land for its proposed 'Centre for Perfect Health' project, comprising an Ayurvedic manufacturing facility, wellness centre, college and other infrastructure. It sought an additional 84 hectares including the land outcrops in the reservoir.

The State Government issued a notification on March 3, 2025 declaring the subject land an industrial area under Section 1(3) of the MID Act. A Government Resolution followed on March 4, 2025, authorising acquisition proceedings and the MIDC issued show cause notices under Section 32(2) of the Act on March 7, 2025. TPCL challenged these actions before the High Court.

The High Court first examined whether the State could use the MID Act to acquire land already forming part of TPCL's hydroelectric projects.

It found that the impugned notifications and notices did not record any finding that the land was unutilised. The authorities could not then introduce that justification through affidavits when no such determination had preceded the acquisition proceedings.

The bench held that the State had also failed to conduct the necessary inquiry into whether the land was genuinely unutilised. It noted that the land continued to serve the public purpose for which it had originally been acquired and was also required for TPCL's proposed pumped storage project.

Even assuming that the High Power Committee's recommendations were only recommendatory, the bench found that the sequence of events indicated a predetermined effort to transfer the land to MVF. It noted that the committee had rejected MVF's request for the land in November 2023, while the Cabinet Sub Committee subsequently decided in February 2024 to pursue acquisition through the MID Act.

The court also examined whether MVF's proposed project could independently qualify as a public purpose. It said that MVF had sought the land for activities including the construction of bridges connecting the mainland to the reservoir's land outcrops, aesthetic development and Vedic chanting.

"The respondents have failed on this score also. As per the said respondent, the said 84 hectares of land is required for aesthetic purposes and 'vedic chanting', for which purpose bridges are proposed to connect the two land outcrops. Can this be at the expense of the hydro-electric projects of the petitioner-TPCL and its catchment area? We find that in such a situation, the petitioner-TPCL has made out a case to successfully challenge the impugned action of the respondents.", the Court said. 

Rejecting the State's justification, the bench questioned whether such activities could be undertaken at the expense of TPCL's hydroelectric projects and the reservoir's catchment area. It found that the respondents had failed to establish why the additional 84 hectares were essential for MVF's project, particularly when the foundation already had approximately 126 hectares.

Accordingly, the bench allowed TPCL's writ petition and quashed the State Government's notifications dated March 3 and March 4, 2025, as well as the show-cause notices dated March 7, 2025.

The proposed acquisition proceedings concerning the 84 hectares were also quashed and the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Officer were disposed of.

For the Petitioners: Senior Advocates D. J. Khambata and Prateek Seksaria, Advocates Bhushan Deshmukh, Venkatesh, Karan Rukhana, Rohit Agarwal, H. N. Vakil, Samkit Shah, Farad Vakil, Ashutosh Srivastava, Syresth Sharma, Siddharth Nigotia, Ashirwad Sapre and Megha Chandu, I/b Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt & Caroe.

For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (State): Special Counsel Shrihari G. Aney, Additional Government Pleader Shruti D. Vyas and Assistant Government Pleader G. R. Raghuwanshi.

For Respondent No. 5 (MIDC): Senior Advocate Chetan Kapadia, Advocates Yuvraj Singh and Shraddha Dube Patil; I/b Jay & Co.

For Respondent No. 6: Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar, Advocates Abhishek Salian, Srushti Thorat, Mayuresh Ingale, Kinnari Raut and Ayesha Dhorajiwala, I/b Vidhi Partners.

Nitin Katore, Law Officer, MIDC.