Bombay High Court

RANVIR GHOGALIYAversusAIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA THR. RADHAKRISHNA EVICTION OFFICER AND ANR.

Decided: 9 March 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: SHARMILA U DESHMUKH

Holding

The eviction orders passed under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 are valid; the SC/ST Act does not provide a bar to eviction of licencees, and pending criminal proceedings do not affect the civil orders.

Summary

The Bombay High Court heard a group of appeals (First Appeal No. 631 of 2025) under Section 28‑K of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994, challenging eviction orders issued under Section 28‑B against Air India employees residing in the Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina. The appellants argued that the evictions violated the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and that reservation policies applicable at the time of allotment should protect them. The court reiterated its earlier July 2025 judgment that the colony lands are airport premises, the leasehold rights transferred to Mumbai International Airport Ltd after disinvestment, and that the employees hold only a licence which was terminated. It held that the SC/ST Act does not bar eviction of licencees and that pending criminal proceedings are immaterial to the civil eviction orders. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the appellants were ordered to vacate within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether eviction proceedings under Chapter V‑A of the AAI Act are proper against the appellants.
Whether the Eviction Officer has jurisdiction to entertain the eviction applications.
Whether the appellants, as SC/ST employees, are protected from eviction under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings bars the civil eviction orders.
Whether the lease and supplementary lease deeds validate the AAI’s title over the housing colonies.

Legislation cited

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 — s. 28-A, 28-B, 28-K
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 15A(8)(c), 3(1)(z)

Subjects

eviction
AAI Act
SC/ST Act
reservation policy
lease deed
disinvestment
airport premises
license
leave and license
Air India
Mumbai International Airport Ltd
jurisdiction
criminal proceedings

Judgment

Digitally signed
by SHAGUFTA
SHAGUFTA QUTBUDDIN
PATHAN
QUTBUDDIN
Date:
PATHAN 2026.03.09 FA-631-2025-group-J.doc
17:44:49
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9089 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16069 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2025

Lokesh Ramnath Ramgude,
age : 55 years, Occupation : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.06-A, Building No.09, ...Appellant/
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1196 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2025

Ashok Ramesh Bohat
age : 53 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,

SQ Pathan 1/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Flat No.12-A, 1st Floor, Building No.9, ...Appellant/
Indian Air Lines, 2nd Housing Colony, Applicant
Kalina, Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India, ...Respondents
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1195 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 OF 2025

Bhimrao Mahadeo Chavan
age : 51 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.3/A, 1st ;oor, Building No.40,
Air India 1st Housing Colony,
...Appellant/
[Old Air India Housing Colony], Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group

SQ Pathan 2/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1201 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2025

Vinay Kumar Choudhary
age : 45 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.12/C, 2nd Floor, Building No.2CC,
Eviction Case No.228 of 2023
...Appellant/
Residence-Indian Air Lines, 2nd Housing Colony,
Kalina, Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India, ...Respondents
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16079 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 463 OF 2025

Sunita Ashok Gaikwad
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,

SQ Pathan 3/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Eviction Case No.75 of 2023
Flat No.29-B, Building No.04, ...Appellant/
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina, Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16072 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 472 OF 2025

Avinash Bhimrao Sonawane
age : 53 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.09, Building No.15, ...Appellant/
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group

SQ Pathan 4/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16076 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 OF 2025

Arun Shinde
age : 57 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.24, Building No.03, ...Appellant/
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16070 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2025

Ranvir Ghogaliya
age : 55 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No.50 of 2023

SQ Pathan 5/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Flat No.1, Building No.1,
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina, ...Appellant/
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16068 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2025

Vidyanand Jaiwantrao Chikhalikar
age : 47 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 48 of 2023
Flat No.11-B, Building No.15,
...Appellant/
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group

SQ Pathan 6/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16078 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2025

Rakesh Gohain
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 64 of 2023
Flat No.47, Building No.05,
...Appellant/
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16082 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2025

Suryakant C. Shikare
age : 50 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,

SQ Pathan 7/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Eviction Case No. 74 of 2023
Flat No.06-A, Building No.09, ...Appellant/
Old Air India Housing Colony, Kalina, Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16083 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 464 OF 2025

C. M. Sonawane
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.25, Building No.16, ...Appellant/
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group

SQ Pathan 8/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16075 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2025

Karnal Nersingrao
age : 60 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.8, Building No.20B,
Indian Air India Colony, Kalina,
...Appellant/
Eviction Case No. 308 of 2023
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16074 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 475 OF 2025

Sunil Maruti Pote
age : 52 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 57 of 2023

SQ Pathan 9/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Flat No.108, Building NoA,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina, ...Appellant/
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16081 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2025

Bhupendra D. Worlikar
age : 56 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Flat No.08-A, Building No.1,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
...Appellant/
Mumbai – 400 029
Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group

SQ Pathan 10/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16073 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 465 OF 2025

S. P. Salunke
age : 57 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 259 of 2023
Flat No.2-A, Building No.06,
...Appellant/
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16080 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 470 OF 2025

Harish Karbhari Deshmukh
age : 53 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,

SQ Pathan 11/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Flat No.8, Building No.01,
Old Air India Colony, Kalina, ...Appellant/
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.951 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2025

Ravindra Dhondiba Gole
age : 55 years, Occ : Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 269 of 2023
Flat No.7-A, Building No.17,
...Appellant/
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali

SQ Pathan 12/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.939 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2025

Brijendra Singh Bidlan
age : 55 years, Occ: Service in Air India Ltd.,
Eviction Case No. 240 of 2023
Flat No.7-A, Building No.02,
...Appellant/
Old Air India Colony, Kalina,
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1200 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2025

S. L. Vanmala
age : 56 years, Occ: Air India Service,

SQ Pathan 13/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Flat No.3-A, Building No.5, 1st Floor,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony, ...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East), Applicant
Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.981 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 245 OF 2025

S. Raviraj Nayak
age : 53 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.11-A, Building No.44, 1st Floor,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali

SQ Pathan 14/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1198 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2025

Arvind K. Jadhav
age : 55 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.3-A, Building No.3,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
Mumbai – 400 099 ...Respondents

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.980 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2025

SQ Pathan 15/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

K. K. Kohli
age : 48 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.8-A, Building No.5, 1st Floor,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.37654 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2025

Sudhakar N. Bhawar
age : 55 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.19-A, Building No.06,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

SQ Pathan 16/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.941 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 248 OF 2025

Rohini R. Vandakar
age : 42 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.1-B, Building No.44,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 249 OF 2025

SQ Pathan 17/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Ashok A. Kamble
age : 56 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.20-A, Building No.06, ...Appellant/
Indian Airlines Colony, Kalina,
Applicant
Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 029
Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA, ...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.953 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2025

S. R.Patil
age : 55 years, Occ: Air India Service,
Flat No.5-A, Building No.7,
Old/New/Air India/ Indian Airlines Old/New Colony,
...Appellant/
Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai – 400 029 Applicant

Versus
1. Airport Authority of India,
Through – Mr. Radhakrishna,
Eviction O3cer Western Regional
O3ce New Airport Colony
Andheri Sahar Road, Mumbai-400 099

SQ Pathan 18/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

2. Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd.,
Through-Mr. Jeetendra Prakash Sali
Representative of MIAL / Adani Group
Terminal 1B, 1st Floor, CSMIA,
...Respondents
Mumbai – 400 099
——————

Mr. Kishor Dhoke i/b Mr. Nitin Satpute for the Appellants/Applicants in all
matters

Ms. Shilpa Kapil for the Respondent No.1-AAI

Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate i/b Wadia Ghandy and Co., for the
Respondent No.2-Mumbai Airport.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
RESERVED ON : 2nd FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 9th MARCH, 2026

JUDGMENT :

1. The present group of appeals is Gled under Section 28-K of the

Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 (for short, “AAI Act”), challenging

the orders passed by the Eviction O3cer under Section 28-B of the AAI

Act directing the eviction of the Appellants from the subject airport

premises.

2. The Appellants in the present appeals are identically situated

as the Appellants in First Appeal No. 1843 of 2024 and connected

appeals, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15 th July,

2025 passed by this Court upholding the individual eviction orders. The

common judgment of 15th July, 2025 was challenged by way of SLP (C)

SQ Pathan 19/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

No 22724 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide

order dated 30th November, 2025 and time was granted to handover

vacant possession of the residential premises up to 30 th November

2025 upon Gling the undertaking to that eJect with the Registrar of

this Court.

3. The present group of appeals challenge identical eviction

orders passed under the AAI Act by the Eviction O3cers. With consent,

First Appeal No. 631 of 2025 was taken as lead petition, and the facts

of the said case are referred to for factual clarity.

4. Vide impugned order dated 14th November, 2024, the Eviction

O3cer, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 28-B(1) and (2)

of the AAI Act, ordered eviction of the Appellant, who is an employee

of Air India Airport Services Ltd. (“AIASL”) and claims to be in

authorized occupation of the airport premises. The eviction orders

came to be passed upon the application Gled by Respondent No. 1

contending that the Appellant is employee of AIASL and is

unauthorised occupation of the airport premises. The application set

out the dis-investment process, the decision to permit the Air India

employees to stay in the residential colonies post disinvestment for a

period of 6 months or till the property is monetized, whichever is

earlier, the previous litigation between the parties and the orders

SQ Pathan 20/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

passed by Bombay High Court, Madras High Court and the Hon’ble

Apex Court.

5. Upon arriving at a satisfaction that su3cient cause is made out,

show cause notice dated 4th October 2023 was issued under the AAI

Act to show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed.

The response of the Respondent No.1 therein, who is the Appellant

herein, was that the representative of all Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

Tribes Air India Employees had Gled Criminal Writ Petition No. 5134 of

2022 before the Bombay High Court against illegal eviction, and a

criminal complaint registered as M.A. SC/ST Case No. 1091 of 2023

against various persons, before the Hon’ble Special Court City Sessions

Court, Mumbai established under Section 14(1) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short, “SC/ST Act”). The contention was that Section 15-A(8)(c) of the

SC/ST Act restrained the Respondents from the act of eviction and that

the Air India Employees had entered into an agreement with

Respondent No. 2- AAI, for implementation of the reservation policies.

The locus of Respondent No 1 was questioned and there was denial to

the grounds of eviction.

6. The counter of the Respondent No. 1 inter alia stated that it is

neither a party to the criminal writ petition nor to the criminal

SQ Pathan 21/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

complaint and that there are no orders granting stay to the present

eviction proceedings.

7. The issues which were framed by the Eviction O3cer reads as

under:

“(a) Whether Applicant can initiate Eviction proceedings under

chapter V-A of the AAI Act 1994,

(b) Whether the Ld. Eviction O3cer has jurisdiction to try,

entertain and decide the eviction proceedings initiated against

Respondent No. 1,

unauthorized occupation of the subject premises as described in

the schedule of the Eviction Application Gled by the Applicant ?

(d) What Order?

(e) What Costs?”

8. The issues were answered in favour of the Respondent No.1

herein, and eviction orders were passed. Hence, the present appeals.

9. Mr. Dhoke, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, would

submit that the AAI carried out the project of alleged disinvestment of

the airport site, Mumbai, through a tender ;oated in the year 2002–

2003, in which G.V.K. Reddy was the lowest bidder, and an agreement

was executed between the AAI and G.V.K. Reddy on 26 th April 2006 for

disinvestment of the airport site, which included the colony quarters.

SQ Pathan 22/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

He would submit that the Madras High Court had partially accepted the

demand by the Union therein, of the reservation for SC/ST/OBC

category employees in recruitment and promotion to be continued and

had observed that the bidder is obligated to use best endeavour for

the Grst year to provide adequate job opportunities to SC/ST persons.

He would further submit that the employees belonging to the

members of the SC/ST community Gled interim application in the writ

petition before this Court challenging the disinvestment alleging

change of service rules, which came to be disposed of with liberty to

the applicants to Gle a separate writ petition. He submits that

thereafter, the Air Corporation SC/ST Employees Association Gled

Criminal Writ Petition No. 5134 of 2022, which is pending and it is

during the pendency of the criminal writ petition, that recoveries were

started against the employees, which led to Gling of police complaint

against the alleged illegal acts of the Secretary of Ministry of Civil

Aviation (`MOCA’) and o3cers of Air India Ltd. He would submit that

as there was inaction of police, the Air Corporation SC/ST Employees

Association Gled a criminal case against Secretary of MOCA and two

o3cers of Air India Ltd., Mumbai, before the Hon’ble Special Court

established under Section 14(1) of the SC/ST Act, and in the said

proceeding, the AAI, MOCA through its Secretary, Air India Assets

Holding Company, and Commissioner of Police, were made parties. He

SQ Pathan 23/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

submits that during the pendency of the criminal writ petition before

this Court and the criminal complaint before the Special Court, the

Respondent No.1- MIAL initiated eviction proceedings, by reason of

which, application was Gled against the Eviction O3cer, the Senior

Superintendent of Air India Ltd., and representative of MIAL. He

further submits that the question which arises before the Special Court

and the eviction proceedings is, as to who is the proper and valid

Eviction O3cer, under which Act i.e. PPE Act or AAI Act and as to

whether the reservation policies applicable to members of the SC/ST

employees are followed or not. He submits that the Eviction O3cer

has passed the Gnal order, in which there is reference to Lease Deed

Agreement dated 26th April 2006 and supplementary Lease Deed

Agreement executed on 21st December 2012 i.e. alleged Lease Deeds

are in the name of G.V.K. Reddy and not between AAI and Adani Group

nor between MIAL and Adani Group. He would further submit that

after Gnal eviction orders were issued by Eviction O3cer/AAI, MIAL

sealed 27 quarters along with household articles of employees in their

absence, and that some employees have thereafter vacated and some

appeals were withdrawn. He submits that the Air Corporation SC/ST

Employees Association has Gled an application before the Special

Court to call for certain records and documents, which were directed to

be called for by the Special Court vide order dated 27 th September

SQ Pathan 24/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

2024. He submits that the original and authenticated documents i.e.

Lease Deeds of 2006 and 2012 along with the map of alleged

disinvestment of Air India Airport, Mumbai, are required to be called

for eJective adjudication. He submits that the contention of the

Respondent No. 1 is that they do not have these documents or that

they are conGdential documents.

10. Mr. Nankani, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of

the Respondent No. 2 would submit that the contentions raised by the

Appellant in the present case are covered by the judgment dated 15 th

July 2025 and the additional issues raised in the present case are as

regards the application of reservation policy. He submits that the

Appellant was allotted the subject premises upon entering into a leave

and license agreement in the form of an undertaking dated 21 st August

2018 in accordance with the Air India Housing Allotment Rules. He

draws attention of this Court to the Rules and submits that the Rules

provide for the allotment by way of grant of license, and reservation

policy is applicable only at the time of allotment. He submits that the

housing colony lands were duly acquired by AAI and are airport

premises within the meaning of Chapter V-A of the AAI Act. He submits

that under OMDA, the Respondent No. 2 was obligated to ensure that

the airport land was handed over free from encumbrances, and that

SQ Pathan 25/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

pursuant to the execution of OMDA, the Lease Deed of 2006 and the

Supplementary Lease Deed of 2011 were executed, to which the

master plan of the entire demised land and carved out assets was

annexed. He submits that the housing colony lands were leased to

MIAL by virtue of the said Lease Deeds and Supplementary Lease Deed,

which makes speciGc reference to the housing colony lands.

11. He would further submit that contempt proceedings were Gled

before Sessions Court in pending Criminal Misc. Application being

SC/ST No. 1901 of 2023, where neither the Eviction O3cer nor

representative of MIAL were originally made party to the criminal

applications and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Sessions

Court vide order dated 2nd February 2024. He submits that the

Sessions Court has held that the submission as regards the eviction

notice being served to cause harassment and humiliation to member of

the SC/ST community, is prima facie inconsiderable and unreliable and

that the order passed by various forums are applicable to all the

employees including SC/ST employees, who are not excluded in any

manner. He submits that the Association has Gled an application

before the Hon’ble Sessions Court to restrain the implementation of

the eviction orders passed by the Eviction O3cer, which application

has been rejected by the Sessions Court. He submits that the Hon’ble

SQ Pathan 26/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

Sessions Court has observed that the issue concerning accommodation

has also been addressed by the High Court and the Apex Court and

would apply to all employees, including those of the Association, and

has therefore rejected the application. He submits that the Gnding of

the Hon’ble Sessions Court is that no prohibitory order could be issued.

12. He would submit that insofar as the Interim Application Gled by

the Appellants are concerned, seeking production of the Lease Deed

and Supplementary Lease Deed, an a3davit-in-reply has been Gled

clearly recording that notarized copy of the Lease Deed and

Supplementary Lease Deed both executed between the AAI and MIAL

are part of the eviction application. He would further submit that the

provisions of the SC/ST Act do not apply as MIAL has taken action

against all occupants without any discrimination and there is no caste

based discriminatory action. He submits that the Appellants do not

enjoy any special rights to continue in occupation on account of their

status as SC/ST as contended and that the reservation policy applies

only at the time of allotment. He submits that the Appellants are mere

licensees and are bound to vacate upon determination of the license.

13. The points arising for determination :

(a) Whether the eviction orders passed under the AAI

Act deserves interference ?

SQ Pathan 27/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

(b) Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings would bar

the eviction of the employees upon being found to be in

unauthorised occupation ?

14. In the earlier group of Appeals, the Court framed the following

points for determination:

“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 O3cer under the AAI Act

and not the Estate O3cer 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?

SQ Pathan 28/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

7. Whether Respondent No.1-employees are unauthorised occupants

of the airport premises?

15. The Gndings on the issues were summarised in the concluding

paragraph 67 of the judgment dated 15th July, 2025, as under:

“(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 colonies constructed 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.

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.”

SQ Pathan 29/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

16. The Gndings of this Court passed in respect of identically

situated employees vide judgment dated 15 th July, 2025 have attained

Gnality upon dismissal of SLP by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Mr. Dhoke

has raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Eviction O3cer, the locus of

Respondent No. 2-MIAL to initiate eviction proceedings and the

premises not being airport premises, which issues stand concluded by

the judgment dated 15th July, 2025. As this Court has already upheld

the jurisdiction of Eviction o3cer, the locus of MIAL and the premises

being airport premises, the same Gndings cover the issues in present

case as it is not shown that the employees situated herein are not

identically situated.

17. The additional contentions raised in the present group of

Appeals is as regards the impact of the status of the Appellants as

members of the SC/ST community on the eviction proceedings and the

eviction orders are claimed to be in violation of the rights of the

Appellants who belong to SC/ST status. The right to continue in the

residential accommodation is premised broadly on (a) order of Madras

High Court which partially accepted the demand of reservation of

SC/ST/OBC category employees in recruitment and promotion (b) the

pendency of Criminal Writ Petition No 5134 of 2022, Criminal M.A.

SC&ST/ 1091 of 2023, contempt application under Section 15A(8) (c) of

SQ Pathan 30/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

SC/ST Act, and, (c) reservation policy under Article 16(4) of

Constitution of India.

18. The Eviction O3cer has considered the submissions on the

applicability of SC/ST Act and has recorded its Gndings in paragraph 42,

45 and 46 as under:

“42. I have noted Mr. Dhokes submissions on the SC/ST POA Act.
Section 3(1)(z) of the SC/ST POA Act provides that any person who
"forces or causes a member of Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe
to leave his house, village or other place of residence" shall be
punishable with imprisonment or Gne as set out in the SC/ST POA
Act. In the present case, the premises in question were allotted to
Respondent No. 1 on license basis by his employer i.e. Air India by
virtue of his employment. As such, Respondent No. 1 does not have
any separate or exclusive right in respect of the subject Airport
Premises and at best can claim only through Air India. The
Government of India in the AISAM decision dated 29th September,
2021 which was communicated to all employees called upon all
employees to vacate the housing colony accommodations within 6
months of disinvestment. At this stage no special provision was
made in respect of employees belonging to the SC/ST Community.
Upon its disinvestment Air India's right in the Housing Colonies
stood extinguished. Air India's decision to call upon employees to
vacate the housing colony accommodations was challenged by
various Unions before the Hon'ble Madras High Court as well as the
Hon'ble Bombay High Court. All these orders have been placed on
record and have been perused by me. None of these orders make
any exception in respect of employees belonging to SC/ST
community. This being the case, I am inclined to dismiss the
Representation made by Respondent No. 1 that the eviction
application should be rejected or kept in abeyance till the hearing

SQ Pathan 31/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

of various criminal proceedings Gled by one Air Corporation
Employees Association.

45. Notably Respondent No. I had Gled an application under Section
15A(8)(c) for ad interim relief against the Respondents therein and
Contemnors for restraining them with interfering in any related or
unrelated pending matters without prior permission of the special
court and for initiating the contempt proceeding against the
Respondents therein and Contemnors. The Respondent No. I claims
that this o3ce was also impleaded as a Contemnor though no
papers and proceedings have been served on this o3ce. The
Hon'ble Sessions Court by an Order dated 2 nd February, 2024
rejected the contempt petition as being devoid of merits. The
Hon'ble Court held that the submission of complainant that they
being members of SC and ST, and that the eviction notices are
served with an intention to cause harassment and humiliation to
them, are prima-facie inconsiderable, unappreciable and unreliable.
The Hon'ble Court held that the members of SC ST shall not have a
separate and independent distinct status to have the relief sought
by them and the orders passed by various forums are applicable to
all the employees including the SC/ST employees who were not
excluded in any manner.

46. The Applicant has followed due process of law by initiating
proceedings under Chapter V-A of the AAI Act. After issuance of
Show Cause Notice ample opportunity was granted to the
Respondent No. 1 to Gle submissions and advance arguments.
Respondent No. I has availed of this opportunity and Gled
submissions which have been duly considered. Therefore, the
allegation that there has been any violation of the Constitution of
India is unfounded and is rejected.”

19. It is not disputed that the allotment of accommodation was

under the Air India Housing Allotment Rules, 2017, which Rules are

SQ Pathan 32/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

framed for allotment of company residence by Air India. Rule 5 dealing

with the procedure for allotment provides that in case of housing

colony allotment, a list will be drawn up calling for options from

amongst eligible permanent employees and the employees will be

oJered ;ats as per their turn in the list. Rule 6 which deals with

reservation in the allotment of quarters for SC/ST employees provides

for percentage of reservation in the speciGc types of ;ats. The Rules

would indicate that at the time of allotment of quarters, certain

percentage in speciGed types of ;ats were reserved for SC/ST

employees, who got preferential allotment. The said Rule cannot be

stretched to mean that once the residential accommodation is allotted

to SC/ST employees out of the reserved ;ats, irrespective of whether

the license stands terminated or whether Air India Ltd itself stood

divested of any right in the residential accommodation, the allotment

continues in perpetuity by reason of reservation of ;ats and the SC/ST

employee cannot be evicted even upon termination of the leave and

license agreement. Rule 20 provides that the allottees to whom

residence are allotted are only licensees. The Rules makes it evident

that the reservation criteria applied at the time of allotment of the

residential accommodation and upon termination of the leave and

license agreement, all employees who accepted the residential

accommodation under the leave and license agreement are bound to

SQ Pathan 33/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

vacate the premises. No right accrues to SC/ST employee in the

residential premises upon termination of leave and license agreement

under which allotment was made.

20. The reliance of Mr. Dhoke on the directions of the Madras High

Court in Writ Petition No 25568 of 2021 is clearly misplaced. The

direction of Madras High Court was in context of the demand raised for

reservation for SC/ST/OBC category employees in recruitment and

promotion and refers to the job opportunities. The direction cannot be

read to mean reservation and continued extension of the housing

accommodation to the employees of Air India who belong to the SC/ST

category.

21. As far as the pendency of criminal proceedings before this

Court and Sessions Court is concerned, the proceedings will take its

own course and does not impact the eviction orders passed under the

AAI Act. The copy of the Criminal Writ Petition No 5134 of 2022 is not

placed on record and search of the o3cial website of the Court

indicates that the Petition was dismissed for non prosecution. Having

upheld the jurisdiction of the Eviction O3cer under the AAI Act, the

pendency of the criminal proceedings is immaterial consideration while

deciding the validity of the eviction order. Even considering the

Sessions Court proceedings, Mr. Nankani has placed on record the

SQ Pathan 34/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

order dated 2nd February, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Sessions Court in

application below Exhibit 5 in Criminal M.A. SC/ST No. 1091 of 2022,

which application was Gled during the pendency of the eviction

proceedings. The Hon’ble Sessions Court considered the provisions of

the SC/ST Act as well as the past litigation and orders passed by this

Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court. It held that merely relying on the

provisions of Section 15-A(8)(c) of the SC/ST Act is inconsiderable and

inappreciable. It noted that the issue is concerning all the employees

and the SC/ST members have not been externed or excluded in any

manner and rejected the interim application. Subsequently, the

eviction orders came to be passed pursuant to which another

application was Gled before the Sessions Court below Exhibit 37 under

Section 15-A(8)(c) of the SC/ST Act for the purpose of restraint against

the implementation of the Gnal orders of eviction. The Hon’ble Special

Court declined to grant any prohibitory relief and dismissed and

disposed of the application. The Appellant made another attempt

before the Sessions Court to prohibit execution of the eviction

proceeding without permission of the Sessions Court. Vide order dated

25th October, 2024, the Sessions Court rejected the application. The

orders of the Hon’ble Sessions Court would indicate that the Sessions

Court has taken into consideration the fact that it is not only the

employees belonging to the SC/ST Caste who have been subjected to

SQ Pathan 35/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

the orders of eviction and that the same are passed against all the

employees. The dismissal of the application would itself indicate the

non-applicability of the provisions of the SC/ST Act in the facts and

circumstances of the present case. The order of Sessions Court is not

shown to have been challenged further. No assistance can, therefore,

be drawn by the Appellants from the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

22. The Appellants seeks to rely on the provisions of Section 3(1)(z)

of the SC/ST Act, to counter the eviction proceedings. Section 3 of the

SC/ST Act provides for punishment for oJences for atrocities and

Section 3(1)(z) provides that forcing or causing a member of Schedule

Caste or a Schedule Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of

residence constitutes an oJence. According to Appellant, by reason of

Section 3(1)(z), even after eviction orders are passed after following

due procedure of law, the SC/ST employees cannot be evicted from

their residence. The contention proceeds on complete misreading of

the said provision. The action of eviction being an action taken in

accordance with law cannot constitute an oJence under Section 3(1)(z)

of SC/ST Act. Accepting the contention would lead to a consequence

that no member of SC/ST can ever be evicted from the premises

occupied by it, whether tenanted or owned or allotted even in

accordance with the procedure known to law. The same cannot be said

SQ Pathan 36/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

to be the import of Section 3(1)(z) of the SC/ST Act. The action of

eviction is initiated against all employees of Air India Ltd after the

disinvestment process without any discrimination and would not

amount to an oJence committed against an employee by reason of

his/her caste. The Appellant being licensee are bound to vacate upon

termination of their license and no special rights accrue to the

Appellant by reason of their status as SC/ST.

23. Under Article 16(4) of Constitution of India, the State may make

provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in any backward

class of citizens, which in the opinion of State, is not adequately

represented in the services under the State. The reservation under

Article 16(4) has no relevance to the present case where after the

disinvestment process, the leave and license stands terminated and the

employees are required to vacate the allotted premises.

24. The decision to evict the Appellant is assailed as breach of

SC/ST Act. The said contention is devoid of merits. The action is taken

against all occupants of residential colonies without any discrimination.

It is not shown that the occupants belonging to SC/ST have been

selectively targeted. There is no question of the eviction orders being

in breach of SC/ST Act, which orders are passed after due process of

law. The caste of the Appellant is irrelevant in present context, where

SQ Pathan 37/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

all occupants are similarly situated as licensees of the residential

accommodation. The termination of the license’s amounts to all

occupants being rendered unauthorised occupants.

25. The other submission raised is that the Special Court vide order

dated 27th September 2024 has directed the Respondents to produce

the authenticated copy of the documents which has not been complied

with. The directions by the Special Court has no bearing to the facts of

present case which pertains to the validity of the eviction orders. In the

present First Appeal, an Interim Application has been Gled in directing

the respondents to produce the Lease Deeds of 2006 and 2011 along

with copy of alleged disinvestment of Air India Airport. These

documents were already placed on record before the Eviction O3cer

and has been considered by this Court in the judgment dated 15 th July

2025. This Court has considered the various clauses of OMDA dated 4 th

April 2006, the Lease Deed dated 26th April 2006 and the

Supplementary Lease Deed dated 21st December 2011. It is contended

by the respondent No.2 that these documents pertaining to the

privatization of Mumbai Airport are available on MOCA Website and

there was no inspection of the original papers sought by the

Appellants. The contention that the agreements were not produced is

completely devoid of merits.

SQ Pathan 38/39
FA-631-2025-group-J.doc

26. In light of the above Gndings, the Appeals are without merit

and stand dismissed. Interim Applications do not survive for

consideration and stand disposed of. Time of four weeks is granted to

the Appellants to vacate their respective premises.

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

SQ Pathan 39/39

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…