Bombay High Court
Mr. Prashant B. Mahadik vs Mumbai International Airport Ltd. … on 15 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:28972
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1843 OF 2024
Shilpi Minz. ...Appellant.
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr. ... Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 OF 2025
Ms. Vibhuti Chavan...............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd & Anr. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1788 OF 2024
Mr. Pawankumar M. Dayma.................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
Versus
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1802 OF 2024
Narendra Kashinath Meher.................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1801 OF 2024
Krishna Hiraji Patil.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd.and Ors. . ...Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 OF 2024
Eknath Kisan Malekar...........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
Patil-SR 1 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1817 OF 2024
Charulata Parag Chitnis.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1818 OF 2024
Gajanan Siddheshwar Shinde..............................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr,.................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1819 OF 2024
Mr. Ashok W. Rane................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr, Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1919 OF 2024
Shazia Shaikh......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1926 OF 2024
Arvind Hari Naik.................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1931 OF 2024
Nilesh Pandurang Lanjekar..................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1929 OF 2024
Shaima Prasad....................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
Patil-SR 2 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1934 OF 2024
Ravi Prakash Bhargava.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1932 OF 2024
Santosh Narayan Suryawanshi............................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Anr................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1938 OF 2024
Khalid Sabri............................................................................................ Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Anr................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1933 OF 2024
Mrs. Chinar Amitabh Panchbhai..........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1925 OF 2024
Jitendra Sahadev Parab.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1939 OF 2024
Prashant Kamalakar Parulekar............................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1947 OF 2024
Swapnil Ravindra Gawde......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
Patil-SR 3 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1940 OF 2024
Raghunath Ganpat Khot......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1936 OF 2024
Rashmi Minz........................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1949 OF 2024
Shobha Ramesh Sanap.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1943 OF 2024
Jitendra Kumar Sarangi........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2024
Pankaj Chauhan..................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1945 OF 2024
Bechanram Yadav..................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1965 OF 2024
Nilesh R. Sakhare...................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Ors..................................Respondent
Patil-SR 4 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1958 OF 2024
Ashok Waman Milkhe...........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1957 OF 2024
Vishal Waman Dawne...........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1963 OF 2024
Deepak Sequeira................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1962 OF 2024
Neena Nachankar..................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1960 OF 2024
Chau Mikalen Enling.............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1964 OF 2024
Manoranjan Baishakha.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1969 OF 2024
Narsinha Patil......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
Patil-SR 5 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1959 OF 2024
Vishnu Manik Gawali.............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1970 OF 2024
Milind N. Moghe.................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1961 OF 2024
Mr. Shashikant Kundlik Salunke..........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1967 OF 2024
Amit Ashok Tikam.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1977 OF 2024
Ashish Mishra......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Ors..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1972 OF 2024
Mr. Rajesh Z. Tatkare............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1975 OF 2024
Sujay Basu............................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
Patil-SR 6 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1986 OF 2024
Arvind Umaji Nagvekar........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport , Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1984 OF 2024
Suresh Vishwanath Yadav....................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2025
Mahadev Desai...................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 OF 2025
C. Iqbal.................................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2025
Uttam Gopal Patra................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2025
Vivek Karnad.......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2025
Sangita Singh......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.. ...Respondents..
Patil-SR 7 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2025
Sandeep A. Gajbhiye.............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Ors..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2025
Nitin Shivaji Satam................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2025
Ganesh Madhukar Savekar..................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2025
Sunil Dagadu Sonawane.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2025
S. Sivakumar........................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2025
Gangishetti Veeresham........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondent.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2025
S.D. Chaube............................................................................................ Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.. ...Respondents..
Patil-SR 8 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2025
Suryakant D. Hegiste............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2025
R.S. Chavan............................................................................................. Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2025
Ashok L. Bhilare.....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2025
Sanjay Gopal Rane.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 70 OF 2025
Sumedh Sadashiv Waghmare..............................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr. ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2025
Mr. Ashish A. Gaikwad..........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 76 OF 2025
Nitin Laxman Nikam.............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
Patil-SR 9 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2025
Reshma S. Thakkar................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2025
Vilas Shankar Bhosle............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2025
Dharmendra B. Shirkar.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 78 OF 2025
Mr. Swarup Chaudhuri..........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 77 OF 2025
Ms. Madhumita Mondal.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd Mumbai And Anr................... Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2025
Jitendra R. Salve....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., And Anr. ...Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2025
R. N. Pagare............................................................................................ Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
Patil-SR 10 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2025
Prakash P. Gusai.....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2025
Deepti Shrestha.....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 OF 2025
Meenakshi S. Bais..................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2025
Anil Sayaji Shikhare...............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 169 OF 2025
Darshana Vinayak Bangre....................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr.. ..Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2025
Sandeep Ganpat Drave........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd. And and Anr. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2025
Vikas Nagvekar...................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.. ..Respondents..
Patil-SR 11 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2025
Mr. Sameer Chhabu Tadvi....................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd Mumbai and Anr... .Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2025
Mr. S. Hansda.......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 556 OF 2025
Ravindra Vasant Shinde.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2025
Mr. Satyawan N. Babar.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 OF 2025
Sunil D. Kumbhar...................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr.................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2025
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma..................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2025
Mr. Mohammed Hashim Ansari...........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
Patil-SR 12 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2025
Sandip Meshram....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2025
Stephen John Vaz................................................................................. Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 579 OF 2025
Mr. Yogesh V. Bhat................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 553 OF 2025
Mr. Kamalakar Shripati Kamble..........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 582 OF 2025
Ramesh M. Adep....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 552 OF 2025
Mr. Ramesh Vishnu Narayankar..........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 OF 2025
Tushar Kanti Sarkar...............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
Patil-SR 13 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2025
Mr. Milind S. Lokhande.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 OF 2025
T. R. Satish............................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 32446 OF 2024
Ms. Bhavisha Odedra............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 26209 OF 2024
Nandapu Jagadeswar Rao...................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 42 OF 2025
Vithoba N. Tervankar............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2025
Prashant Kisan Gaigole Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2025
Ganesh Shivaji Ingavale........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
Patil-SR 14 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1944 OF 2024
Mohammad Rafi C.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1800 OF 2024
Dilip Janardan Gamare.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 55 OF 2025
Maxie E Dias........................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2025
Mr. Ganesh Kumar Ganga Singh..........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1924 OF 2024
Dinesh Yashwant Gajakosh..................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1987 OF 2024
Mahesh Hamne......................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2025
Mr. K. J. Lassar....................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
Patil-SR 15 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2025
Shailesh Madhukar Kolambkar...........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2025
Mr. Sanjay Shantaram Tendulkar........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 554 OF 2025
Mr. Prashant B. Mahadik......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2025
Mr. Kailash Vinayak Pavitrekar............................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Aiport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr. .....................Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 563 OF 2025
Mr. Manoj Vitthal Solanki.....................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1803 OF 2024
Ganesh Pandurang Khedekar..............................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1804 OF 2024
Shankar Yogendra Shahu.....................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
Patil-SR 16 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1883 OF 2024
Sandesh V. Shirodkar............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2025
Mohan R. Dane...................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1942 OF 2024
Dinesh Manohar Pange........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2025
Rajendra Kumar Pandey.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Ors..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2025
Prem Singh............................................................................................. Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 74 OF 2025
Ramesh J. Kamble.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2025
Mr. M. Paramasivan ...Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr. ....Respondents..
Patil-SR 17 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2025
Neil Gaikwad.......................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Mumbai and Ors. ....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 572 OF 2025
Mr. Sanjay Bhise.....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1990 OF 2024
Anil Kumar Verma.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1966 OF 2024
R.B. Mali.................................................................................................. Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1978 OF 2024
Alkeshkumar Ramjibhai Parmar..........................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO. 32442 OF 2024
Mr. Rahul Deore.....................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd Mumbai and Anr....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2025
Vijay Mates Rosario..............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr. ...Respondents..
Patil-SR 18 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2025
Ajay Gupta.............................................................................................. Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr.. ..Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 OF 2025
Ms. Shramika B. Ubale..........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr..................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2025
Mr. Sunil Kumar..................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. Mumbai and Anr ....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2025
Ms. Suchitra Mangrati.........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Internatinal Airport Ltd Mum & Anr....Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 564 OF 2025
Mr. Sachin Shivalkar..............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Internatinal Airport Ltd Mum & Anr.. ..Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1946 OF 2024
Sangdra Rodrigues................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. And Or.s. .Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1921 OF 2024
Ninad B. Vaity........................................................................................ Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
Patil-SR 19 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2025
Ms. Parul Kailas Meshram Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Internatinal Airport Ltd Mum & Anr. ...Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1806 OF 2024
Mr. Deepak S. Pawaskar.......................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr,.................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 130 OF 2025
Sanjeevika Sarmal.................................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1805 OF 2024
Vilas Kaluram Jadhav...........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr,.................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2025
Shobha J. Pujari..................................................................................... Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd., Mumbai and Anr....Respondents..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2025
Ms. Vineeta Shakya...............................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd..................................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2025
Ms. Poonam Parihar Borana................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Internatinal Airport Ltd Mum Anr. ..Respondents..
Patil-SR 20 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 562 OF 2025
Mr. Sayyed Shahid Akhtar....................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airport Ltd. And Anr.................................Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2025
Joshua Barnabas Devi..........................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Internatinal Airport Ltd Mum & Anr . ..Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2025
Akshay Lalitkumar Chonkar.................................................................Appellant
Versus
Mumbai International Airports Ltd. And Ors.. Respondents.
------------
Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ashok Shetty, Rita K. Joshi,
Mishra and Mr. Rahul Shetty for the Appellants (Except FA No. 169/2025).
Amrendra Sinha, Priyanka Suresh Kale for the Appellant in FA 169/2025.
Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Chirag Kamdar, Ms.
Samruddhi Mali and Mr. Suhas K. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shilpa Kapil, Chidanand Kapil, Chandru Bavishi and Priti Karbhari for the
Respondent No. 2.
------------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on: May 2, 2025
Pronounced on : July 15, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. These groups of Appeals filed under Section 28-K of the Airports
Authority of India Act, 1994 [for short “AAI Act“] impugns the order of
Eviction Officer dated 6th February, 2024 rejecting the Appellant’s
application seeking interalia impleadment of Air India Asset Holding
Patil-SR 21 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
Company Limited [for short “AIAHCL”] and Air India/AAESL/AIATSL as
party Respondents and final eviction order dated 26 th August, 2024
ordering handing over possession of the subject Airport Premises being
the respective flats in the buildings situated in the Air India Housing
Colony located on CTS NO 771, 7718 and 7726 of Village Kolekalyan,
Mumbai.
2. With consent, First Appeal No.1843 of 2024 is treated as lead
Appeal and the facts of the said Appeal are referred for factual clarity.
Common submissions were advanced and the Appeals are being
disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience,
parties are referred to by their status before the Eviction Officer.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The orders impugned arose out of application filed by Mumbai
International Airport Ltd before the Eviction Officer under Chapter V-A
of the AAI Act seeking initiation of eviction proceedings against the
Respondent No.1-employee of Air India Limited as unauthorised
occupant of Airport premises. The Airport Authority of India was
impleaded as Respondent No.2.
4. The Eviction Officer issued notice to the Respondent No.1 under
Section 28-C of AAI Act to show cause against the proposed order of
eviction. The Respondent No 1 filed interim application seeking
impleadment of Air India Limited/AIESL/AIATSL in capacity as employers
Patil-SR 22 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
of Respondent No.1 and also of AIAHCL as party Respondents. The
application came to be rejected by the Eviction Officers holding that
employers had already called upon the employees to vacate the housing
colony accommodation and there is no necessity to implead the
employers in an application filed by Applicant. As far as impleadment of
AIAHCL is concerned, the Eviction Officer held that the
Respondent/Employees are not claiming through AIAHCL and as there is
no privity of contract, AIAHCL is not a necessary party. The written
statement filed by Respondent No.1 resisted the eviction substantially
challenging the applicability of AAI Act and the jurisdiction of the
Eviction Officer.
FINDINGS OF EVICTION OFFICER:
5. The Eviction Officer framed the following issues for
consideration:
(a) Whether Applicant can initiate eviction proceedings under
Chapter V-A of the AAI Act, 1994?
(b) Whether the Eviction Officer has jurisdiction to try, entertain and
decide the eviction proceedings?
(c) Whether the Respondent No.1 proves that he/she is not in
unauthorised occupation of the subject premises as described in
the schedule of the Eviction Application filed by the Applicant?
6. On the Applicant’s locus to initiate eviction proceedings, the
Eviction Officer held that under the AAI, the proceedings commence
Patil-SR 23 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
upon the issuance of show-cause notice by the Eviction Officer under
Section 28-C of AAI Act. It held that the Applicant had locus being
lessee of the housing colony lands on which the subject premises are
situated and are to be used only for airport development. It held that as
the rights of Air India Limited in the housing colony land stands
extinguished, Air India Ltd cannot take steps for eviction. The reliance
on the transfer of the structures standing on AAI land upon
privatisation of Air India to AIAHCL was rejected as the Respondent No
1 did not claim under AIAHCL. The Eviction Officer also took note of
HOTO note whereby the possession was handed over by AIAHCL to the
Applicant.
7. On the issue of jurisdiction, the Eviction Officer noted the
admission of Respondent No.1 during final argument that the housing
colony lands belong to AAI, and held that the provisions of AAI Act are
applicable. It held that even if upon disinvestment the non-core assets
of Air India Ltd were transferred to AIAHCL, it only retained a right to
receive compensation which in any event has been handed over. As the
premises were held to be airport premises, the Eviction officer upheld
the applicability of AAI Act.
8. The issue of the Respondent No.1’s unauthorised occupation was
answered against the Respondent No.1 by considering the housing
allotment rules, the communication by AISAM, the orders passed by the
Patil-SR 24 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
High Courts and the License Agreement to hold that employee’s right to
continue in the premises was determined by AISAM decision dated 29 th
September 2021, which was extended up to 24 th September 2022, by
the Order dated 25th August 2022, passed by the Bombay High Court,
which has attained finality. The Eviction Officer noted that the
Respondent No 1 is the employee of Air India Limited, who had
executed leave and license agreement with its employer and since Air
India did not have right, title and interest in the building, the employees
have no right to continue to occupy the premises and directed eviction.
SUBMISSIONS:
9. Mr. Mihir Desai, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Appellants would submit that the housing colony lands were earlier
owned by the State Government and leased in the year 1952 to Air India
Limited, which constructed the colony. He submits that in the year 1972,
the lands were acquired by Airport Authority of India and the lease of
Air India Limited continued. He submits that in 1994, the Airports
Authority of India Act was enacted and OMDA between AAI and
Applicant executed in the year 2006 leased certain properties to
Applicant which did not include the housing colony lands by pointing
out to the various clauses of the Lease deed dated 26 th April, 2006 and
supplementary lease deed dated 21 st December, 2011. He would submit
that on 29th September 2021, the Cabinet Committee was set up for
Patil-SR 25 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
privatization of Air India and on 20 th January 2022, the privatization of
Air India Limited was completed. He submits that AIAHCL is formed by
the Central Government and the colonies are owned by AIAHCL, who
stepped in the shoes of Air India Ltd as landlord of the Appellant.
10. He would submit that the proceedings before the Eviction officer
must fail for non joinder of necessary party as Air India Ltd, AIESL,
AIATSL and AIAHCL have not been impleaded. He submits that as the
Respondent No.1 being still in employment of their services, the staff
quarters are allotted as condition of service. He submits that the leave
and license agreements have not yet been terminated as per law and in
any event, the Respondent No 1 could be evicted only by their employer
as the accommodation is allotted as part of their service condition.
11. On applicability of AAI Act, he submits that the premises are not
airport premises as it does not fall under category of Section 28A(a)(i) of
AAI Act. He submits that the land was leased by AAI to Air India and
Indian Airlines and the buildings were built by them and hence the
housing accommodations belongs to Air India Ltd, which upon
disinvestment stood transferred to AIAHCL, which is Government
Company and the letter dated 29th September, 2021 speaks of
monetization of the same. He submits that as Air India continued to pay
the lease rent it is evident that the housing colony lands were never
leased to Applicant and therefore were put up for monetization.
Patil-SR 26 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
12. He draws attention of this Court to the observation of Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 34307/2022, that the
housing colony lands and buildings are now owned by AIAHCL. He
submits that the documents produced by Applicant only authenticate
the transfer of land by AAI and not the buildings of the colonies.
13. He submits that the premises were allotted to Respondent No 1
as condition of service under the housing allotment rules upon
execution of leave and license agreement which has not been
terminated. He submits that the issue of right to retain quarters being
sub-judice before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Eviction Officer ought to
have stayed its hands.
14. He would draw attention of this Court to the communication
dated 7th October 2021, issued by Air India Limited which makes a
reference to the PPE Act, in event the premises are not vacated. He has
further taken this Court to the observations made in the Orders passed
by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which makes specific
reference to the PPE Act. He submits that as AIAHCL is the owner of the
structures, it is the PPE Act which applies. He submits that before the
Hon’ble Apex Court, the Ministry of Labour and Employment had filed
an affidavit dated 8th November 2023 which refers to PPE Act.
15. He would assail the claim of Applicant by contending that no
reliance can be placed on HOTO note dated 12 th January 2024, handing
Patil-SR 27 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
over all rights of AIAHCL in the buildings and structures to Applicant as
the transfer was by way of unregistered unstamped agreement. He
submits that in any event said note was subsequent to the issuance of
show cause notice by the Eviction Officer.
16. Mr. Desai would submit that Applicant did not lead any evidence
and did not prove the documents in accordance with law. He would
submit that by reason of disinvestment, the employees cannot be made
to suffer and their service conditions unilaterally changed illegally. In
support he would rely on the following decisions:
17. Per contra, Mr. Nankani learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Applicant would submit that Respondent No 1 was allotted the subject
airport premises as housing accommodation under the housing
allotment rules, which was by way of license and did not confer any
interest by way of lease or tenancy. Drawing attention to the leave and
license agreement executed by the Respondent No 1, he submits that
Respondent No 1’s position as licensee stands affirmed. He would
further submit that out of 1683 flats located in approximately 106
structures constructed thereon only 216 flats remained occupied, and
1 (2008) 7 SCC 748.
2 (2019) 3 SCC 594.
Patil-SR 28 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
20 vacant buildings have already been demolished.
18. He submits that there is no privity of contract between the
Respondent No 1 and Applicant or Airport Authority of India. He
submits that the withdrawal of housing accommodation facility is
evident from the order of 5th February, 2024 passed in Appeal from
Order (L) No.2748 of 2024 which records the submission of Air India Ltd
that employees who have vacated the flats have been given benefits
including HRA, reimbursement of moving expenses, hotel expense etc.
He submits that the termination of license stands affirmed by reason of
the decision of AISAM dated 9th August, 2021 granting time of six
months to employees, letter dated 29 th September, 2021
communicating the decision to Air India Ltd and letters dated 7 th
October, 2021, 23rd May, 2022 and 26th December, 2022 addressed by Air
India Ltd to their employees directing them to vacate their premises. He
submits that pursuant thereto undertaking was given that premises will
be vacated. He submits that deduction of any amount from the
employees is irrelevant and cannot mean that the license continues. He
submits that upon disinvestment the housing colony were not
transferred to Air India Ltd and the employees are unauthorised
occupants as the building no longer belongs to their employer.
19. He submits that by virtue of OMDA, Applicant has been granted
exclusive right and authority to undertake certain functions in relation
Patil-SR 29 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
to Mumbai airport. He submits that Airport Authority of India is 26%
shareholder in Applicant. He submits that under the Lease Deed and
supplementary Lease Deed executed between Applicant and AAI, the
housing colony lands alongwith buildings, construction or immovable
assets were leased to Applicant and Annexure C to the supplementary
lease deed makes specific reference to land bearing CTS Nos.7717, 7718
and 7726 on which housing colony lands are situated. He would submit
that property cards are accordingly updated showing the Applicant as
lessee.
20. He submits that the orders where a reference is made of PPE Act,
is not the submission of Applicant and there cannot be any estoppel
against law. He submits that Applicant was a party only in Writ Petition
(L) Nos. 19001 of 2022 and 19171 of 2022.
21. He would further submit that employees did not have the
authority to challenge HOTO as they are not executant of the said
documents. He submits that AIAHCL was party to the Civil Court
proceedings and had supported the order of eviction. He submits that
the premises being Airport premises, the Eviction Officer appointed
under the Airport Authority Act was entitled to issue the show-cause
notice. He has taken this Court through the orders passed by Madras
High Court and Bombay High Court to contend that the employees were
given time till 24th September, 2022 to vacate, which time was not
Patil-SR 30 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
extended and subsequently eviction proceedings were commenced in
or around September, 2023.
22. He would further submit that the pending challenge to the
withdrawal of service condition in the Hon’ble Apex Court is not
relevant as the Hon’ble Apex Court by order dated 16 th February 2024,
expressly permitted the eviction proceedings to continue. He would
submit that the Applicant is not legally obliged to provide housing
accommodation to the Respondent No.1. He further submits that the
housing accommodation will have to be provided in flats that the
employer has a right to license and post privatization, Air India Limited
has ceased to pay any compensation for housing colony lands. He
submits that even if the SLP is decided in favour of the Appellant, it is
the employer who will have to honour the service conditions.
23. On the aspect of jurisdiction, Mr. Nankani would submit that the
housing colony lands and structures thereon are “airport premises”
within the meaning of Section 28-A(a) of AAI Act and premises is
defined under Section 28-A(c) to mean any land or building or part of a
building. He submits that procedure for eviction under Section 28-C of
AAI Act may be adopted suo moto or at the instance of any party and as
long as the subject flats are found to constitute ‘airport premises’ and
employees are found to be unauthorised occupants, it is irrelevant who
has initiated the proceedings before the eviction officer. He submits
Patil-SR 31 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).docthat in any event no prejudice has been demonstrated by reason of
initiation of eviction proceedings under AAI Act.
24. He submits that AAI is the owner and Applicant is the lessee and
pursuant to execution of HOTO note, AIAHCL has no remaining interest
even in the structures situated on the housing colony lands. He submits
that even if it is accepted that the ownership of the buildings is
transferred to AIAHCL same is immaterial as Respondent No.1 is
unauthorised occupant, as per the notice. He submits that as AIAHCL,
Air India, AIESL or AIATSL have no right or interest whatsoever in the
structures/buildings, they are not necessary or proper party. In support
he relies upon the following decisions:
(i) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat v. Director Health Services, Haryana3
25. In rejoinder, Mr. Mihir Desai, would submit that in the order dated
13th March 2023, passed in Writ Petition(L) No.34307 of 2022, the
Hon’ble Division Bench has specifically noted that the land and buildings
on which the residential accommodations are located is the property of
AIAHCL. He submits that if the property belongs to AIAHCL, Applicant
or AAI could not have initiated proceedings for eviction. He submits that
the land belongs to Air India Limited and the structure is transferred to
3 (2013) 10 SCC 136.
4 (2000) 4 SCC 406.
Patil-SR 32 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
AIAHCL, which is a Central Government Authority and therefore only
PPE Act would apply. He submits that as the ownership was transferred
to AIAHCL, there is no termination of Leave and License. He submits
that the license fees are continued to be deducted from the salaries of
the employees.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
26. The points which would arise for consideration are broadly
summarised as under :
1. Whether upon execution of OMDA on 4 th April, 2006, the housing
colony lands and the super structures constructed thereon were
demised by Airports Authority of India in favour of Applicant under
the Lease Deed dated 26th April, 2006 and Supplemental Lease deed
dated 21st December, 2011?
2. Whether upon dis-investment of Air India Limited, the housing colony
lands and/or the super structure stand transferred to AIAHCL?
3. Whether the residential accommodation constitutes Airport premises
giving jurisdiction to the Eviction Officer under the AAI Act and not
the Estate Officer under PPE Act?
4. Whether the license granted by Air India Limited to the employees in
respect of the housing accommodation has been terminated by Air
India Limited ?
5. Whether the action of eviction could be initiated only at the instance
of Air India/AIESEL and not by Applicant or Airports Authority of
India?
6. Whether AIAHCL, Air India Limited/ AIESL/ AIATSL are necessary
parties to the proceedings?
7. Whether Respondent No.1-employees are unauthorised occupants of
the airport premises?
Patil-SR 33 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
27. The first two issues as to the transfer of lease hold rights in the
land and super structures constructed thereon to Applicant or AIAHCL
entails examination of OMDA, the lease deed/supplemental lease deed
executed by AAI in favour of Applicant and the position post
disinvestment qua the super structures constructed on the leased lands.
DEEDS EXECUTED BY AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA IN FAVOUR OF
APPLICANT:
28. On 4th April, 2006, Applicant and Airport Authority of India, an
authority constituted under Section 3 of AAI Act executed an Operation,
Management and Development Agreement (OMDA). The agreement
vested in the Applicant inter alia the exclusive right and authority to
undertake some of the functions of Airport Authority of India being the
function of operation, maintenance, development, design, construction,
upgradation, modernisation, finance and management etc of the
Mumbai Airport. Upon such authorisation, it was permissible for AAI
under Section 12-A of the AAI Act to execute lease of the airport
premises including building and structures thereto and appertaining
thereto. The right conferred by the statutory provisions finds its
presence in OMDA, Lease Deed and Supplemental Lease Deed. Clause
2.6.1 of OMDA reads as under:
Patil-SR 34 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
"2.6.1 In consideration of the Lease Rent, this Agreement
and the covenants and warranties on the part of the JVC
herein, the AAI, in accordance with the AAI Act and the terms
and conditions set forth herein, hereby, agrees to demise to
the JVC under the Lease Deed, commencing from the Effective
Date, all the land (along with any buildings, constructions or
immovable assets, if any, thereon) which is described,
delineated and shown in the Schedule 25 hereto, other than (i)
any lands (along with any buildings, constructions or
immovable assets, if any, 2.6.1 In consideration of the Lease
Rent, this Agreement and the covenants and warranties on the
part of the JVC herein, the AAI, in accordance with the AAI Act
and the terms and conditions set forth herein, hereby, agrees
to demise to the JVC under the Lease Deed, commencing from
the Effective Date, all the land (along with any buildings,
constructions or immovable assets, if any, thereon) which is
described, delineated and shown in the Schedule 25 hereto,
other than (i) any lands (along with any buildings, constructions
or immovable assets, if any, thereon) granted to any third party
under any Existing Lease(s) constituting the Airport on the
date hereof; and (ii) any and all of the Carved Out Assets and
the underlying land together with any buildings, constructions
or immovable assets thereon, on an “as is where is basis”
together with all Encumbrances thereto, (hereinafter
“Demised Premises”) to hold the said Demised Premises,
together with all and singular rights, liberties, privileges,
easements and appurtenances whatsoever to the said Demised
Premises, hereditaments or premises or any part thereof
belonging to or in anyway appurtenant thereto or enjoyed
therewith, for the duration of the term hereof for the
purposes permitted under this Agreement.
29. Clause 2.6.1 granted lease of the lands described, delineated and
shown in Schedule 25, which Schedule was a map demarcating demised
premises. Except the land alongwith any buildings etc granted to any
third party under any existing lease constituting the Airport and the
carved out assets the leasehold rights in other lands were transferred to
Applicant. The expression “existing leases” was defined in the
definition Clause 1.1. to mean the valid and subsisting leases for any
Patil-SR 35 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).docportion of the Airport entered between AAI and various third parties,
detailed in Schedule 28. Perusal of Schedule 28 of OMDA discloses that
certain lands were allotted to Air India and Indian Airlines for purpose of
construction of housing accommodation.
30. The position post determination of existing lease is set out in
Clause 2.1.2 and Clause 2.1.3 of the Lease Deed dated 26 th April, 2006
which reads as under :
“2.1.2 It is understood and expressly agreed between the
Parties that on the expiry or early termination of the Existing
Leases, any land (along with any buildings, constructions or
movable assets, if any, thereon) under such Existing Leases
together with all and singular rights, liberties, privileges,
easements, rights of access, benefits and appurtenances
whatsoever to the said Existing Leases, hereditaments or
premises or any part thereof belonging to or in anyway
appurtenant thereto or enjoyed therewith, shall, from the date
of expiry or early termination of the Existing Leases, form an
integral part of the Demised Premises herein and the Lessee
shall enjoy a leasehold interest over the same on the same
terms and conditions as set out herein for the remainder of
Term of this Lease Deed.
2.1.3 With respect to land underlying the Carved Out
Assets, the Parties further agree that if, at any time during the
Term, the Lessee requires the said land for providing any
Aeronautical Services or developing and/or constructing any
Aeronautical Assets, the Parties shall come together to
negotiate in good faith the terms and conditions on which the
Lessor shall lease to the Lessee, and the Lessee shall take on
lease from the Lessor, the said land.”
31. As per the above clauses, the consequence of determination of
existing lease is demise of the said lands to the Applicant. As the leased
properties were not described in detail with villages and City Survey
numbers, supplemental lease deed dated 21 st December 2011, came to
Patil-SR 36 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
be executed annexing the master plan showing the total demised land,
carved out assets etc alongwith village wise summary of demised land, a
detailed list of the city survey numbers alongwith the respective land
areas in respect of demised land. Clause 2.1 of the Supplemental Lease
Deed refers to the Master plan annexed showing the total demised land
out of total lands vested with Lessor at the Chhatrapati Shivaji
International Airport. Clause 2.2 refers to village wise summary of the
demised land in favour of the Lessee under the Lease Deed annexed as
Annexure “B” and Clause 2.3 refers to a detailed list of all the city survey
numbers as available from the records of the Maharashtra State
Revenue & City Survey Department alongwith the areas of all the
demised land in favour of the Lessee under the said Lease Deed
annexed as Annexure “C”.
32. Schedule 28 of OMDA makes it clear that the lease in favour of Air
India and Indian Airlines was in existence at the time of execution of
OMDA and under the agreements, upon expiry or early termination of
the existing lease, the land alongwith building and constructions would
form an integral part of demised premises. The pre-disinvestment
position discerned is that the housing colony lands formed subject
matter of existing lease and post-disinvestment the lease hold rights in
those lands along with the buildings and constructions thereon stood
transferred to the Applicant.
Patil-SR 37 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
PROCESS OF DISINVESTMENT OF AIR INDIA LTD:
33. Air India Limited was incorporated as a Government Company
under the Companies Act 1956 and Air India Engineering Services
Limited (AIESL) and Air India Airport Services Limited (AIASL) were
incorporated as fully owned subsidiaries of AIL for handling its
engineering and ground handling department.
34. The Government of India granted in principle approval for
strategical disinvestment of Air India Ltd. The order of Madras High
Court dealing with the challenge to the disinvestment records that in
January, 2020 the Government of India decided to disinvest its 100%
stake in Air India Ltd and in October, 2021 one Talace Pvt Ltd emerged
as successful bidder and share purchase agreement was executed. The
housing accommodation is stated to be not part of the transfer to
Talace Pvt Ltd but was transferred to Special Purpose Vehicle-AIAHCL.
35. The Government through the Cabinet Committee empowered Air
India Specific Alternative Mechanism Committee (AISAM) for sale of
100% equity shareholding of Government of India in Air India Limited.
Privatization of Air India Limited happened in the year 2022.
OWNERSHIP OF SUPER STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED BY AIR INDIA ON
LEASED LANDS:
36. The focal point is the ownership of the housing colonies which
will decide the applicability of the relevant Act and consequently
Patil-SR 38 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
jurisdiction. About the lands on which the housing colonies are
constructed, there is no scope for debate that the lands are owned by
AAI. Though the lease agreements between Applicant and AAI provide
for the lands along with buildings and constructions thereon to form
integral part of demised lands upon determination of existing lease, the
residential accommodation is stated to have been transferred to
AIAHCL. Emphasis is placed on judicial orders of the Madras High Court
and Bombay High Court to drive home the point that the housing
colonies constructed by Air India Ltd stood transferred to AIAHCL. The
Madras High Court was considering a challenge to the dis-investment
process seeking to protect the terms and conditions and rights of the
employees of Air India Ltd. While setting out the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the filing of the Petition, the Madras High
Court noted that in process of disinvestment, in September, 2021, the
Government issued an order notifying the transfer of capital assets of
Air India Ltd to AIAHCL for sale of its stake in Air India and the housing
accommodation belonging to Air India is stated to be not part of the
transfer to Talace Pvt Ltd. The order records the submissions made on
behalf of Government of India that the housing colonies will not be
transferred to Talace Pvt Ltd but will be transferred to a Special
Purpose Vehicle i.e. AIAHCL.
37. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in its order dated 13 th March,
Patil-SR 39 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
2023 passed in Writ Petition (L) No 34307 of 2022 alongwith connected
Writ Petition noted that the facts were that with a view to monetize the
assets of Air India Ltd, all the lands and properties were vested in newly
formed company Air India Asset Holding Limited and thus the lands and
buildings in which the residential accommodations are situated became
the property in ownership of AIAHCL.
38. In these petitions, the Applicant was not impleaded as party and
upon reading of the decisions, it is evident that the issue of ownership
of housing colony lands or the structures thereon was not under
consideration. The decision has to be read in the context of the issue
involved and the submissions canvassed before the Hon’ble Court were
directed towards the challenge maintained by the employees seeking to
protect its housing accommodation as a condition of service and
seeking reference for industrial adjudication. A judgment is an authority
only for what it decides and the essence of a decision is its ratio and not
every observation made therein. The orders of Bombay High Court and
Madras High Court cannot be said to have concluded the issue of
ownership of the housing colonies.
39. The transactions as embodied in various documents have to be
considered cumulatively to examine the transfer of the housing colonies
to AIAHCL in the backdrop of legal provisions. Though not stated in so
many words, what is propounded by Mr. Desai is the concept of dual
Patil-SR 40 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
ownership as the structures were constructed by Air India Ltd on leased
lands. As far as the subject lands are concerned, the position is settled
from the material on record that the housing colony lands were earlier
leased to Air India Ltd and upon disinvestment formed part of demised
land to the Applicant. There is no material which can persuade the
Court to hold that the lease hold rights in the subject lands continued in
favour of Air India Ltd or the new entity. The contention that the lease
rent is continued to be paid by Air India Ltd is not demonstrated from
the evidence on record.
40. Ignoring for the moment, the clauses in the lease deed and
supplemental deed which demised the land alongwith the buildings
standing thereon in favour of Applicant, let us examine the concept of
dual ownership which takes us to Section 108 of Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 which governs the rights and liabilities of the lessor and
lessee and provides for them in absence of a contract or local usage to
the contrary and relevant for our purpose is clause (h) which provides as
under:
“(h) the lessee may even after the determination of the lease
remove, at any time whilst he is in possession of the property
leased and not afterwards all things which he has attached to
the earth; provided he leaves the property in the state in which
he received it”
41. The legal position has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Patil-SR 41 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan v. J.R Thakur5 recognizing the concept of dual
ownership and it was held that Section 108 does not prohibit the
lessees from contracting to hand over the building erected on the land
by them to the lessors without receiving any compensation. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in facts of that case held that although under Section 108 of
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the lessee had the right to remove the
building, by contract, they had agreed to hand over the same to the
lessors without the right to receive compensation at the end of the
lease, the matter being entirely one of contract between the parties
and such a contract, however, did not transfer the ownership in the
building to the lessors while the lease subsisted. During subsistence of
lease, the lessors would not have any right in the buildings. The lease
between Air India Ltd and AAI is not on record to ascertain the
agreement between the parties as regards the buildings. What is
relevant is the position post determination of lease. Upon
determination, the lessee while it is in possession is entitled to remove
the building. If the contract provides for the same, the lessee may be
entitled to compensation. At the highest, the lessee is entitled to
compensation.
42. The legal entitlement upon disinvestment of Air India Ltd and
transfer of its assets to AIAHCL, as far as housing colonies are
5 1958 AIR 789.
Patil-SR 42 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
concerned would be issue of compensation dependent on the terms of
the lease deed executed between AAI and Air India Ltd. The structures
constructed on the leased lands is not an asset of either Air India Ltd or
AIAHCL. The reference to monetisation of the property referred to in
the communication dated 29th September, 2021 addressed by the
Government of India to Air India Ltd would necessarily mean an
entitlement for compensation.
43. The handing over of possession of the housing colonies to the
Applicant is in consonance with the statutory provisions and would not
require the possession to be recorded in a registered stamped
agreement. In any event, there cannot be any challenge to HOTO in
these proceedings at the behest of the Respondent No. 1. Whether the
HOTO was unregistered, unstamped and executed after the eviction
proceedings is irrelevant in light of the view taken that the structures
stood yielded to lessor.
WHETHER THE RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION CONSTITUTES AIRPORT
PREMISES AND APPLICABILITY OF AAI ACT :
44. Section 28-A(a) of AAI Act defines “airport premises” as under:
“(a) “airport premises” means any premises-
(i) belonging to airport;
(ii) taken on lease for the purposes of airport;
(iii) acquired for the Authority under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) or any other
corresponding law for the time being in force.
Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared
that for the purposes of this clause, “airport” includes private
airport.”
Patil-SR 43 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
45. It would also be relevant to consider Section 28-A(c) which defines
“premises” as under:
“(c) “premises” means any land or building or part of a building,
and includes-
(i) the garden, grounds and outhouses, if any,
appertaining to such building or part of a building; and
(ii) any fittings affixed to such building or part of a
building for more beneficial enjoyment thereof.”
46. The PPE Act defines “public premises” under Section 2(e) as
under:
“(e) “public premises” means–
(1) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or
requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Central Government, and
includes any such premises which have been placed by that
Government, whether before or after the commencement of
the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants)
Amendment Act, 1980 (61 of 1980) under the control of the
Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing
residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that
Secretariat;
(2) any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on
behalf of,–
(i) any company as defined in section 3 of the [the
Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)], in which not less than
fifty-one per cent. of the paid-up share capital is held by
the Central Government or any company which is a
subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first-
mentioned company;
(ii) any corporation (not being a company as defined in
section 3 of the the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), or
a local authority) established by or under a Central Act
and owned or controlled by the Central Government;
(iii) any company as defined in clause (20) of section 2 of
the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) in which not less
than fifty-one per cent. of the paid up capital is held
partly by the Central Government and partly by one or
more State Governments and includes a company which is
a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first-
mentioned company and which carries on the business of
public transport including metro railway.
Explanation ……………………..”
Patil-SR 44 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
47. Mr. Desai does not contend that housing colony lands are not
airport premises and he seeks to create a distinction between the
residential buildings and the subject lands to say that the buildings are
not airport premises. This submission is premised on the reasoning that
the buildings being constructed by Air India Ltd are owned by Air India
Ltd and transferred to AIAHCL and therefore not airport premises. The
submission lacks merit as the statutory provisions of Section 28-A (c)
widely define premises to include land or building or part of building. As
the lands leased to Air India Ltd constitutes airport premises, the
buildings cannot be divorced from the leased lands to constitute public
premises by applying concept of dual ownership post disinvestment.
The submission must also fail for the reason discussed above, that upon
disinvestment, the buildings must yield to lessor and the only issue is of
compensation, whether payable or not depending on the contract.
48. Once the residential accommodations are held to be airport
premises, it is the AAI Act which would be applicable and not PPE Act.
AAI Act is a special legislation and by amendment of 2003, Chapter V-A
was inserted with the stated object of providing for appointment of
eviction officers and tribunal to obviate the menace of large scale
encroachment and unlawful occupation of airport premises.
49. The applicability of PPE Act is canvassed by Mr. Desai on two
grounds, firstly, that in course of disinvestment, the residential
Patil-SR 45 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
buildings are stated to have vested in AIAHCL and, secondly, various
orders record that action would be taken under the PPE Act. The aspect
of the structures vesting in AIAHCL has already been dealt with
hereinbefore and the execution by AIAHCL of HOTO note weakens the
defence of AIAHCL being the owner of the premises. On one hand the
employees dispute the ownership of Applicant in the structures and on
the other hand claim that by virtue of HOTO note Applicant has become
the employee’s landlord, which pleas cannot stand together.
50. In so far as the observations in the judicial orders are concerned, it
is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred and there cannot be
estoppel against statute. The reference in the various orders to PPE Act
was in the context of observing that necessary action will have to be
taken for eviction of the unauthorised occupants. A reading of the said
decisions does not indicate that issue of the applicability of AAI Act or
PPE Act to the residential accommodation was in consideration. It is also
pertinent to note that apart from the Writ Petition (L) No 19001 of
2022, Applicant was not party to any subsequent Petitions. In Writ
Petition (L) No 19001 of 2022, by order dated 25 th August, 2022 the
Hon’ble Division Bench gave time till 24 th September, 2022 to vacate the
premises failing which action in terms of PPE Act together with such
other action as is available in law to be taken against the employees.
51. The submission of applicability of PPE Act is also founded on the
Patil-SR 46 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
Air India Housing Allotment Rules, which makes reference to PPE Act.
The said Rules would obviously apply during the subsistence of lease in
favour of Air India Limited and where the property continues to vest in
Air India Limited with the occupants continuing as employees of Air
India Limited. Reliance on the said Rules is misplaced when post dis-
investment, the right of Air India Ltd to the housing colony lands/
structures stands extinguished.
52. Despite lengthy arguments on applicability of PPE Act, there is no
real prejudice demonstrated by reason of the eviction proceedings
being instituted under the AAI Act. Both the legislations deal with the
eviction of unauthorised occupants and statutory provisions are pari
materia commencing with the issuance of show cause notice to the
unauthorised occupants.
WHETHER THE LICENSE IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.1 STAND
TERMINATED :
53. In accordance with the Air India Housing Allotment Rules, 2017,
several employees of the Air India Limited and subsidiary companies
were allotted residential accommodation. The Respondent No 1 do not
dispute the position that under the Air India Housing Allotment Rules,
2017, the allotment of the residential accommodation was by way of
leave and license.
54. A decision was taken by Air India Specific Alternative Mechanism,
Patil-SR 47 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
to permit all employees of Air India Limited and the subsidiary
companies to occupy the residential accommodation for a period of 6
months post disinvestment or till the property was monetized,
whichever is earlier, which was conveyed to Air India Ltd by letter dated
29th September 2021. Subsequently, notices were issued to the
employees on 7th/8th October, 2021 calling upon them to vacate the
company accommodation. The employees upon receipt of
communication executed an undertaking to vacate the accommodation
within the prescribed time frame. Again on 23 rd May, 2022 and 26th
December, 2022 reminder notices were served by Air India.
55. The withdrawal of the housing accommodation facility by Air India
Ltd needs no reinforcement. In the face of various communications
calling upon the employees to vacate the residential accommodation, it
is no longer open for the Respondent No 1 to contend that there is no
termination of license. The fact that Air India Ltd itself stood divested of
any right in the residential accommodation, there would be no right left
in the employee to continue in the residential accommodation.
56. The fact that communications dated 7/8th October, 2021 and
26/27th May, 2022 came to be challenged by filing Writ Petitions (L)
Nos.19001/2022, 19171/2022 and 20338/2022 alleging that the action
of eviction amounts to withdrawing of service condition constitutes an
admission that license stood terminated by the communications. The
Patil-SR 48 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
Madras High Court after an exhaustive clarification on each issue
involved, in paragraph 72 noted the submission of Government of India
that only a fraction of the employees were in accommodation and
majority of the employees in lieu of colony accommodation had been
compensated with admissible HRA. The Madras High Court held that as
far as housing is concerned, once the employees are entitled to HRA in
view of housing accommodation, the employees cannot raise the issue
as a grievance calling for interference of the Court. The observations by
Madras High Court is an answer to submission of Mr. Desai that by
reason of denial of HRA and deduction of license fees, the leave and
license agreement is subsisting. The deduction of license fees is
immaterial as no right in the residential accommodation remained with
Air India Ltd.
INITIATION OF EVICTION PROCESS BY APPLICANT:
57. The provisions of Chapter V-A of the AAI Act do not provide for
any specific authority or entity to file an application before Eviction
Officer for removal of unauthorised occupant. The only requirement of
said Chapter is that premises must constitute “airport premises” and the
occupant must be an unauthorised occupant. Section 28-C of AAI Act
provides for issuance of show-cause notice by Eviction Officer to the
unauthorised occupant.
58. Section 28-C of the AAI Act reads as under :
Patil-SR 49 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
“28C. Issue of notice to show cause against order of eviction.
–(1) If the eviction officer is of the opinion that any persons
are in unauthorised occupation of any airport premises and that
they should be evicted, the eviction officer shall, in the manner
hereinafter provided, issue a notice in writing calling upon all
persons concerned to show cause why an order of eviction
should not be made.
(2) The notice shall–
(a) specify the grounds on which the order of eviction is
proposed to be made; and
(b) require all persons concerned, that is to say, all persons
who are or may be, in occupation of, or claim interest in, the
airport premises–
(i) to show cause, if any, against the proposed order on
or before such date as is specified in the notice, being a
date not earlier than seven days from the date of issue
thereof, and
(ii) to appear before the eviction officer on the date
specified in the notice along with the evidence which they
intend to produce in support of the cause shown and also
for personal hearing, if such hearing is desired.
(3) The eviction officer shall cause the notice to be
served by having it affixed on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the airport premises and in such other
manner as may be prescribed, whereupon the notice shall be
deemed to have been duly given to the persons concerned.
(4) Where the eviction officer knows or has reasons to
believe that any person is in occupation of the airport premises,
then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (3), he
shall cause a copy of the notice to be served on every such
person by post or by delivering or tendering it to that person or
in such other manner as may be prescribed.”
59. The statutory scheme of Section 28-C of AAI Act requires two fold
satisfaction to be reached by Eviction Officer. Firstly, that the occupant
is in unauthorized occupation and that he is required to be evicted
consequent to which the notice is issued by Eviction Officer proposing
eviction. The burden is upon the noticee to show why the proposed
action of eviction should not be initiated. It is also relevant to note
Patil-SR 50 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
Section 12 of AAI Act, which provides that one of the functions of the
authority is to take all steps which may be necessary for the exercise of
any power or discharge of any function imposed by this Act. Under
Section 12-A of the AAI Act when the functions of the authority have
been assigned to Applicant, under Section 12-A(4) of the AAI Act the
lessee has all the powers of authority necessary for the purpose of
performance of such functions in terms of the lease. Thus, Applicant
stepped into the shoes of AAI and could have initiated the eviction
proceedings provided the premises constitute airport premises and the
occupants were unauthorised occupants. Pertinently, AAI was also party
respondent to the proceeding and supported the eviction proceedings.
60. In the written note of submission, it is submitted by the
Respondent No 1 that even if the premises are airport premises, the
power to evict would be with Air India Authority and that Air India or
AIAHCL on its own cannot take recourse to Section 28-A. That answers
the contention of of Mr. Desai that Air India/AIHCL/AIESL are necessary
parties to the proceedings. Once it is held that the subject premises are
airport premises, there is no necessity for adding Air India/ AIESL/
AIATSL. As far as AIAHCL is concerned, the Respondent No 1 does not
claim through AIAHCL and therefore it is not a necessary party.
UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANCY OF AIRPORT PREMISES:
Patil-SR 51 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
61. Out of 1683 flats located in 106 buildings, 216 flats remain
occupied. Section 28-A(f) of AAI Act defines “unauthorised occupation”
as follows:
“(f) “unauthorised occupation” in relation to any airport
premises, means the occupation by any person of the airport
premises without authority for such occupation and includes
the continuance in occupation by any person of the airport
premises after the authority(whether by way of grant or any
other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy
the premises has expired or has been determined for any
reason whatsoever.”
62. The right of Respondent No 1 to reside in the housing colonies
flowed by reason of the allotment by Air India Ltd by executing the
license agreements. The authority under which the employees were
occupying the residential premises having been determined, the
occupation of Respondent No 1 becomes unauthorised occupation.
Upon disinvestment, no right remained in Respondent No 1 to continue
to occupy the residential accommodation.
63. AISAM’s decision clearly called upon the employees to vacate the
premises withdrawing the housing allotment. The termination of the
right to occupy the residential premises also stands concluded by the
order passed by 25th August, 2022 passed in Writ Petition (L) No 19001
of 2022 and other connected petitions. Vide the said order, the
employees were directed to vacate the premises by 24 th September,
2022. The Bombay High Court order was taken to the Hon’ble Apex
Court and while passing the interlocutory order dated 16 th February,
Patil-SR 52 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the eviction
proceedings with the caveat that even if the orders of eviction are
passed, the same shall not be implemented for a period of one month.
64. The order of Eviction Officer discloses that the defence of the
employees to remain in occupation was (a) The leave and license
agreements have not been terminated, (b) The Applicant having
acquired rights in the structures in view of HOTO note, the Applicant are
employee’s landlord (c) the pendency of the proceedings before the
Hon’ble Apex Court. None of these defences have been accepted by the
Eviction Officer and rightly so. The termination of the leave and license
agreement has been demonstrated by several vacation notices issued to
the employees. Even if the transfer of non-core assets to AIAHCL is
accepted, the same cannot assist the case of employees as there is no
privity of contract between the Respondent No 1 and AIAHCL. The right
to claim housing accommodation can be enforced only against the
employers. The pendency of the proceedings in the Hon’ble Apex Court,
cannot be a ground to stay the eviction proceedings, especially when
the Hon’ble Apex Court did not interfere with the institution of eviction
proceedings. Whether the housing accommodation facility could be
withdrawn being an essential condition of service does not arise for
consideration in the eviction proceedings and even if Respondent No 1
succeeds before the Hon’ble Apex Court, the employees cannot claim a
Patil-SR 53 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
higher right than its employers in the housing accommodations.
65. By order of 25th August 2022, passed by Bombay High Court in the
Petitions impugning the eviction orders issued to the employees,
Hon’ble Division Bench has directed that till 24 th September 2022 but
not beyond, the members of Petitioners are permitted to occupy their
respective allotted accommodations and action may be taken in
accordance with law against the employees who fail to vacate
accommodation provided to them by Air India Limited. Having failed to
vacate by 24th September, 2022, the employees became unauthorised
occupants of the housing colonies for which appropriate action was
taken under AAI Act. The employees are claiming right to the
residential accommodation under the Air India Housing Allotment Rules,
which were considered by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and by
order of 13th March 2023, this Court while considering the issue whether
the “housing” is a term of employment of members of Petitioner-union
therein, held that Rules make it apparent that allottee of
accommodation will be merely licensee and Rules do not confer or
create any right in the employees for allotment of accommodation. It
further held that Companies have absolute right under the leave and
license agreement to determine the same at any time without assigning
any reason. Therefore, no assistance can be drawn from the Rules which
are framed for allotment of residential accommodation to the
Patil-SR 54 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).doc
employees. It is also not disputed that for the purpose of allotment of
accommodation, employees had entered into leave and licence
agreement and had also executed undertaking for vacating Company
accommodation. There is no semblance of right shown by the
Respondent No.1 to continue to occupy the residential premises.
66. The submission that there is no evidence led by Applicant and
only documents were produced does not deserve acceptance as the
impugned eviction order records that all the documents produced by
Applicant are either certified copies of public documents or original
documents. The documents were taken on record and marked as
exhibits. The order does not indicate that any objection was taken to
the documents being marked as exhibits on the ground of mode of
proof. No objection to the admissibility of evidence on the basis of
mode of proof can be permitted to be taken at the Appellate stage.
CONCLUSION:
67. In light of the above discussion, this Court has arrived at the
following findings:
(a) The lands on which the housing colonies are located are
owned by Airport Authority of India and constitute airport
premises under Section 28-A of AAI Act.
(b) The lease hold rights in the housing colony lands stand
transferred to Mumbai International Airport Ltd upon
disinvestment of Air India Ltd. As the housing coloniesPatil-SR 55 of 56
FA 1843-2024 (Group).docconstructed on the airport land yield to the lessor on
disinvestment, the same constitutes airport premises. In any
event AIAHCL has handed over the possession of the
housing colonies to Mumbai International Airports Ltd.
(c) The housing accommodation facility advanced by Air India
Ltd to its employees stood withdrawn and leave and license
stood terminated and time was given by the Hon’ble Division
Bench to vacate the premises by 24th September, 2022.
(d) No right in the housing colonies lands or the housing
colonies remained with Air India Ltd upon disinvestment and
no such right can be claimed by its employees.
(e) As the subject lands and housing colonies constitute airport
premises and are required for purpose of airport, it is the
AAI Act which will be applicable and not PPE Act.
68. The Appeals are therefore without merit and stand dismissed.
Interim Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand
disposed of.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
69. At this stage, request is made by learned Counsel appearing for
the Appellants for stay of the judgment for a period of six weeks. The
judgment is stayed for a period of six weeks.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Patil-SR 56 of 56
Signed by: Sachin R. Patil
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 15/07/2025 19:32:42