Retaining Possession Post Land Acquisition Is Trespass: High Court Upholds Eviction Of Unauthorised Occupants From Mumbai International Airport
The Bombay High Court has upheld the eviction orders passed against a group of unauthorized occupants, claiming tenancy rights on the premises of Mumbai International Airport.A Single bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that the land in question was acquired by the State in 1947 and hence, even if the owner himself tries to retain possession thereof, he will become a trespasser....
The Bombay High Court has upheld the eviction orders passed against a group of unauthorized occupants, claiming tenancy rights on the premises of Mumbai International Airport.
A Single bench of Justice Sandeep K. Shinde observed that the land in question was acquired by the State in 1947 and hence, even if the owner himself tries to retain possession thereof, he will become a trespasser. Reliance was placed on Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and others.
The Airport authorities had moved eviction applications under Section 28-D of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, seeking eviction of the petitioners from the structures situated on the Airport premises.
The applications were resisted by the petitioners, contending that they were occupying their respective structures since the last 40 years as tenants of one Mr. Ambroce Creado. They annexed Ration Cards, Property Tax Bills, Electricity Bills, Aadhar Cards in evidence.
Regardless, during the cross-examination, the petitioners admitted that they are neither able to establish their rights over the said structures nor could they establish that the land underneath the structures was owned by Creado (their landlord). In fact, Creado had withdrawn his suit against the Airport Authority as far back as in March, 2013.
Single judge noted that the evidence on record reveals that the airport premises is a part of larger land that was acquired by the Airports Authority of India in 1947 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Eviction Officer had held that petitioners were occupying part of Airport premises without authority and thus, in exercise of the powers under Section 28-D of the Act of 1994, they were directed to vacate the Airport premises.
The single judge thus concluded that the eviction orders passed against the petitioners, being unauthorised occupants of Airport Premises, calls for no interference and disposed off the applications.
"In view of acquisition, followed by possession of larger plot/C.T.S. No.145-A, it absolutely vested in the State...In view of aforestated observations, petitioners could not have claimed tenancy through their landlord to justify their possession," the order stated.
Case Title : Becharabhai B. Chauhan v Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. And connected matters
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 203