The Bombay High Court has quashed Maharashtra’s proposed acquisition of 84 hectares of Tata Power land near Thokarwadi Dam for Maharishi Vedoddharak Foundation. The Court held that the industrial development law was used to bypass acquisition safeguards for a private entity, while the land continued to serve hydroelectric projects.
Mumbai: Maharishi Vedoddharak Foundation (MVF) already had about 126 hectares near the Thokarwadi Dam reservoir and sought 84 more, belonging to Tata Power. On November 5, 2026, the Bombay High Court set aside the notifications and notices through which Maharashtra sought to acquire that land for the private foundation’s proposed project [The Tata Power Company Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.]. The land includes two outcrops within the reservoir and forms part of the company’s hydroelectric operations in Pune district.
A Division Bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat allowed the petition. In its 96-page final judgment, the Bench held that the State and the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) had exercised their powers to benefit MVF through a legally impermissible acquisition route.
The directions
Under paragraphs 135 and 136, the Court quashed the challenged instruments dated March 3 and March 4, 2025, and the show-cause notices dated March 7, 2025. It consequently quashed the proposed acquisition proceedings for the 84 hectares and disposed of the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer.
The ruling concerns this proposed acquisition and the statutory route used to pursue it. Its operative directions address the additional 84 hectares, rather than the approximately 126 hectares already allotted to MVF.
Land conveyed in 1911 to 1940, and a request refused
The disputed property is connected with the existing 75 MW Bhivpuri Hydro Station and the proposed 1,000 MW Bhivpuri Pumped Storage Project. The judgment records that lands for the hydroelectric undertaking had been acquired and conveyed to Tata Power’s predecessor under agreements executed between 1911 and 1940.
MVF had received its 126 hectares for its proposed Centre for Perfect Health project, and it sought the further 84 hectares, including the reservoir outcrops. Tata Power refused to part with the land.
Maharashtra subsequently invoked the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, declaring the disputed land an industrial area and initiating acquisition proceedings. Under the proposed arrangement, MVF would provide the compensation money and receive the land through MIDC.
The two sides
Tata Power contended that the land remained in use for a public purpose and that the State had chosen the industrial development statute to avoid the safeguards governing acquisition for private companies under the 2013 land acquisition law.
The State and MIDC defended the acquisition by invoking the State’s power of eminent domain and its industrial policies. MVF described a project involving Ayurvedic manufacturing, healthcare, education, research and wellness tourism, and claimed it would generate employment for more than 1,000 people. The respondents also argued that the petition was premature because objections were still pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Why the Court stepped in before a final acquisition order
The Court found that senior State authorities had already settled on transferring the land to MVF, overruling earlier recommendations and abandoning the proposed requirement for Tata Power’s consent. It held that an officer at the level of the Sub-Divisional Officer could not effectively decide the constitutional objections raised in the petition, and that the proceedings had a predetermined character. The challenge was therefore maintainable.
A statute for industrial areas, not for one company
The Bench distinguished acquisition to develop industrial areas and estates under the MID Act from acquisition undertaken exclusively for an identified private company. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Shri Ramtanu Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it held that the statute did not provide the route claimed by the respondents for acquiring land purely for MVF.
In paragraph 100, the Court found a “colourable exercise of power”: the State had used the MID Act to achieve an acquisition exclusively for the foundation while avoiding the general acquisition law of 2013.
The Court also rejected MIDC’s reliance on Section 39(1)(a) as authority for the proposed arrangement. It noted that the provision concerns disposal of acquired land and must be read with the safeguards in the rest of Section 39, including the first-offer requirement where undeveloped land is proposed to be sold.
Jobs promised, purpose still private
The Bench held that the State’s inherent power to acquire property is constrained by law and the requirement of public purpose. Invoking eminent domain did not place the acquisition beyond judicial scrutiny.
In paragraphs 114 and 115, it examined whether the project’s primary purpose was public, rather than whether it could produce incidental public benefits. The Court found that the proposed project primarily served private interests; the promise of employment did not resolve that distinction.
The Bench contrasted this with the continuing hydroelectric use of Tata Power’s land and the State’s own August 2023 memorandum of understanding for the 1,000 MW pumped storage project. In paragraph 118, it found no material explaining why MVF’s existing 126 hectares were insufficient or why its project depended on obtaining the additional land.
Case Details
Case: The Tata Power Company Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6215 of 2025
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat
Judgment by: Justice Manish Pitale
Decision Date: November 5, 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45243-DB
Outcome: Writ petition allowed; challenged notifications/notices and proposed acquisition proceedings quashed.