Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J
Edward alias Adward Paul Machado Mumbai v. J. R. Aryan Chairperson Airport New Delhi and Others
Headnote: Read headnote
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
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupations) Act, 1971, are not empowered to decide complicated questions ....
Land resumption orders must comply with legal standards of due process, including rights to notification and evidence substantiation, particularly when public authority decisions affect statutory rig....
A decision is vitiated by irrationality if the decision is so outrageous, that it is in defiance of all logic; when no person acting reasonably could possibly have taken the decision, having regard t....
Adverse possession requires proof of open, continuous, and hostile possession with the necessary animus, which the petitioner failed to establish.
The legal point established is that the landlord retains ownership rights until physical possession is taken over by the government, and the burden is on the tenant to show how they came into possess....
Possession after the lease's expiry without renewal renders the occupant unauthorized under the Act, justifying eviction for misuse of the premises.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article