The Bombay High Court emphasised the crucial role of sports in nation-building, declaring that sports policies intended for public benefit should not remain unimplemented as mere "paper policies." On Monday, the court reprimanded Maharashtra's Urban Development Department (UDD) officials for their "lackadaisical approach" in failing for 20 years to establish an international standard government sports complex in Ghansoli, on a sprawling 61-acre plot allocated by CIDCO.

The High Court found it "highly unimaginable" that the state government, through an affidavit by Aseemkumar Gupta, Principal Secretary (Urban Development Department), claimed the pricing of the 20 acres earmarked for the sports complex demanded by CIDCO would be Rs 2,500 crores. The court was also "extremely surprised" that the Principal Secretary did not holistically consider the issue of arbitrary allotment of part of this land to a builder.

The court annulled CIDCO's 2017 allocation of part of the Navi Mumbai land to Progressive Homes for commercial use and rejected the state's decision to relocate its sports complex from Navi Mumbai to Mangaon taluka, a remote rural area 115 km away. The High Court described CIDCO's land allotment for a residential complex as "not only objectionable but wholly arbitrary and illegal," stating that CIDCO should have acted with "public consciousness."

A division bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain highlighted the global significance of sports and the need for effective, accessible sports facilities. They expressed shock that the state abandoned the land for prime commercial exploitation by a builder. The judgement, delivered as part of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed in 2019, underscored the importance of maintaining designated sports facilities. The PIL, filed by the Indian Institute of Architects, Navi Mumbai chapter through Shekhar Bagool and Kaushal Jadia, questioned whether a ground designated in 2003 for a government sports complex in Navi Mumbai should be developed for commercial purposes.

The state reported that out of the 41 acres meant for the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NNMC) to build the sports complex, CIDCO handed over 36 acres. However, the PIL claimed the remaining 20 acres were "illegally taken away" and the complex was being shifted to Nanore village by a 2021 state decision.

The High Court criticised CIDCO as a new town planning authority for its arbitrary actions. The court found it "unthinkable" that the state could not utilise the Ghansoli plot for its intended public purpose, stressing the importance of providing sports facilities to children and youth in Mumbai and Navi Mumbai. The court directed CIDCO to hand over the entire plot in sectors 12 and 12A to the state for the sports complex, either for free or at government rates, noting that "sports play a significant role in the development of citizens and the nation."

Despite strong opposition from government and civic authorities, which included 28 affidavits over five years, the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioning architects. The court heard advocates Indrajeet Kulkarni for the petitioners, Nitin Gangal for CIDCO, Senior advocate Y S Jahagirdar for the builder, AGP B V Samant for the state, and Tejesh Dande for NNMC. The judgement delved into laws governing sports and the importance of promoting sports and proper sports programmes.

On a request from CIDCO and the state, the High Court stayed its order for four weeks to allow them to challenge the ruling before the Supreme Court. The court expressed disbelief that a sports complex intended for an urban area could be relocated to a site lacking infrastructure and connectivity, making its routine use impractical.

Justice Kulkarni, authoring the 134-page judgement, found it "unthinkable" that the land at Ghansoli, reserved for a government sports complex, remained unutilised for 18 years. He stressed the importance of urban areas having necessary infrastructure for sports and that relocating these facilities to remote areas was impractical for urban residents. The court criticised CIDCO's pricing demands and the state's failure to correct these issues, concluding that the decision to relinquish the Ghansoli land was "brazenly illegal and arbitrary."

The court reiterated that CIDCO's land zoning and development plans, which earmarked land for the government sports complex, were intended for public interest. It was inconceivable that this land remained unutilised for 18 years. The court asserted that authorities must consider the present and future rights of citizens to open spaces, playgrounds, and sports complexes, which are essential for the youth and children of urban areas. The government could develop an additional sports complex in Raigad but should not substitute it for the one intended for Navi Mumbai. The court condemned CIDCO for altering the land's status from a government sports complex to open market allotment and stressed the need for a sense of proportion in land pricing.