Edward alias Adward Paul Machado Mumbai v. J. R. Aryan Chairperson Airport New Delhi and Others

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2016 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 19

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
*S. C. Dharmadhikri, B. P. Colabawalla, JJ.
Edward alias Adward Paul Machado Mumbai v. J. R. Aryan Chairperson Airport New Delhi and Others
W. P. (L) No. 2522 of 2015

Important Points

The doctrine of adverse possession requires consistent and credible evidence, which was not provided, as the claimant's allegations were found to be based on fabricated documentation and manipulation of records.

Subject

Property Law - Eviction Proceedings

Act Referred

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994: S.12A, S.28A
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: S.4, S.6
Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
Limitation Act, 1963: S.27, S.65

Headnote

(A) Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 - Sections 12A, 28A, 28C, and 28D - Eviction proceedings - The petitioner, an agriculturist, claimed ownership of 28.52 acres of land, asserting adverse possession against Airports Authority of India (AAI) - Eviction orders were upheld by the Appellate Tribunal; the court found ample evidence of unauthorized occupation and manipulation of revenue records (Paras 4-5, 10-14, 40-44).

(B) Adverse Possession - The court emphasized that the doctrine requires clear and consistent evidence, which was not provided by the petitioner, whose claims were based on fabricated documents and manipulation of land records.

(C) Jurisdiction of Eviction Officer - The court found no jurisdictional errors in the proceedings and concluded that the Eviction Officer acted within the bounds of authority as outlined in the law.

(D) Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed. (Paras 70-72)

Table of Content
1. overview of the petitioner's claims and historical context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conditions of eviction application and background facts. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. petitioner's arguments against eviction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. details on written statement and previous petitions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
5. consolidation of arguments by the petitioner. (Para 20)
6. court’s observations on procedural aspects. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. interpretation of 'airport premises' under the law. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. discussion on eviction notice and its validity. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. rights and limitations regarding summary eviction proceedings. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
10. final ruling on the merits of the case. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
11. establishment of the petitioner's ownership claims. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
12. complications arising from the ownership dispute. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)
13. legal precedents relevant to the case. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61)
14. conclusion of proceedings and final orders. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)

1. Rule. Respondents waive service.

2. By this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Chairperson of the Airport Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 10th July, 2013, in an eviction case being EO No.1/2012.

3. The petitioner states that he is an 85 years old agriculturist who, along with his forefathers has been a permanent resident of Mumbai and in actual use, occupation, cultivation, possession and enjoyment of large tracks of land admeasuring 28.52 acres being Survey Nos. 131, 136 to 139 and 140 of village Marol and Survey No. 7 of village Bapnala, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that the agricultural activities on the larger lands were carried out till 17th July, 2009, when the Mumbai International Airport Limited ' " respondent No. 4 to this petition allegedly forcibly dispossessed the petitioner from approximately 18.52 acres of land out of the larger property. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner claims to be in possession of 10 acres of land as the owner thereof. The petitioner, in addition to his cultivation and agricultural activities, claims to have put up structures on the balance lands to accommodate his servants / workmen and to store farming equipments, seeds etc. From the events leading up to the order of the Eviction Officer, it is stated that there is a panchanama drawn of the subject property where the possession of the petitioner of larger lands is recorded. Then, there is reliance placed on the internal correspondence which has taken place as between the Airports Authority of India (for short ' AAI' ) with the officers of the department of Civil Aviation, Government of India.

4. The application seeking eviction of the petitioner / original Respondent No. 1 from the subject premises was filed in the following facts and circumstances :
' (a) By virtue of S.12A of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 , (hereinafter referred to as ' the AAI Act' ) various functions have been assigned to the Applicant AAI. Under S.12A(4) of AAI Act, the Applicants has all the powers as necessary for the performance of such functions.
(b) The land mentioned in the Schedule of the present Application is Airport Premises within the meaning of S.28A(a)(iii) and (c) read with S.2 of the AAI Act. The said premises have been duly acquired for AAI in the following manner : -
(i) By and under Notification dated 25th August, 1947 under Section - 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , ('Acquisition Act' ) the then Government of Bombay notified that the said Premises were likely to be required for public purpose i.e. extension and development of aerodrome at Santacruz.
(ii) By a declaration dated 9th June, 1948, under section - 6 of the Acquisition Act, the then Government of Bombay notified that it was satisfied that the said Premises we