Gujarat HC ruling: The court held that AAI cannot demolish residential towers near Ahmedabad airport without first conducting an aeronautical survey to assess flight safety risks. (File Photo)
Completed residential towers cannot be demolished on the Airports Authority of India’s (AAI’s) orders until an aeronautical survey first establishes that the buildings actually threaten aircraft safety, the Gujarat High Court has ruled, giving relief to six real estate firms whose finished buildings near Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport in Ahmedabad here had been flagged for excess height.
Justice Hemant Prachchhak disposed of seven grouped petitions in a common judgment on April 30, quashing all demolition notices issued to the developers, and directed AAI to carry out aeronautical surveys of each structure at the petitioners’ own cost before any further action is taken. The affected projects include Star Icon and Paradise, Radhe Skyline-2, Dev Aashish Sky, Satved Platinum, Sahitya Hills and Icon, and Kalash Parisar, where many units have already been sold to homebuyers, who are unable to receive occupation certificates.
The ruling is likely to have wider implications for real estate projects across Gujarat facing height-restriction enforcement actions near airport zones, clarifying that an aeronautical study should come before any demolition mandate, particularly in cases linked to discrepancies in recorded ground elevation rather than unauthorised construction.
The Court held that the AAI’s insistence on prior demolition before any survey was “unjustified and untenable in the facts of the present case” and that “to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, the request of the petitioners ought to be considered in the first instance, and an aeronautical survey should be conducted at their cost.”
In its 54-page judgment, the court said, “If there is any violation of the construction permission granted by the authority, after taking into account the findings of the aeronautical survey/study, it is open for the respondents to take appropriate steps; and if it is ultimately found that the petitioners have committed a breach/violation of the permission, then to remove the objectionable structure at the cost of the petitioners…”
The Court expressly cited the Delhi High Court’s decisions on identical facts and noted that the AAI’s own counsel conceded that he was “unable to controvert the orders passed by the Delhi High Court”, though he maintained that they carried only persuasive value before the Gujarat bench. On the AAI’s consideration of similar petitions of neighbouring buildings, the Court held the respondents’ decision to be “completely irrational and arbitrary” and found that the Authority had failed to apply its ‘mind’ to attendant facts.
The Court stated that “a decision which is arbitrary or irrational, such that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same, will not be sustained in a court of law…” The Court held that denying the petitioners the same dispensation extended to comparable neighbouring projects “would amount to discrimination and arbitrary treatment of the petitioners, which leads to a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Story continues below this ad
Each of the petitioning developers had obtained AAI No Objection Certificates (NOC) permitting construction up to 102.7 metres above mean sea level, followed by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation development permissions. Buildings were constructed floor-by-floor within the AMC-sanctioned heights. When AAI subsequently measured the completed structures, it found top elevations exceeding 102.7 metres. It was not because extra floors had been added, but because the ground elevation at each site was now being recorded several metres higher than the figure submitted at the time of the original NOC applications.
AAI notified the district collector, stopped the issuance of Building Use Certificates, and directed the builders to demolish the excess portions. When the developers requested aeronautical surveys–at their own expense, to first determine whether their structures actually posed any aviation hazard, the AAI refused, citing Aerodrome Safeguarding Circular (ADSAC) 08 of 2020, which bars consideration of revised NOCs or aeronautical studies where an applicant has already violated NOC conditions.
The Court held that the Aeronautical Study Guidelines under ADSAC 05 of 2020 “is in derogation of the provisions of GSR 751(E)” and that Clause 6.2 “cannot be construed as an embargo or any restriction which cannot be imposed in the absence of any statutory provision contained in rules viz. GSR 751(E), or in case of any inconsistency, or in the absence of any rules.”
Aditi Raja is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, stationed in Vadodara, Gujarat, with over 20 years in the field. She has been reporting from the region of Central Gujarat and Narmada district for this newspaper since 2013, which establishes her as a highly Authoritative and Trustworthy source on regional politics, administration, and critical socio-economic and environmental issues.
Expertise:
Core Authority & Specialization: Her reporting is characterized by a comprehensive grasp of the complex factors shaping Central Gujarat, which comprises a vast tribal population, including:
Politics and Administration: In-depth analysis of dynamics within factions of political parties and how it affects the affairs in the region, visits of national leaders making prominent statements, and government policy decisions impacting the population on ground.
Crucial Regional Projects: She consistently reports on the socio-economic and political impact of infrastructure projects in the region, especially the Statue of Unity, the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada River, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High Speed Rail bullet train project as well as the National Highway infrastructure.
Social Justice and Human Rights: Her reporting offers deep coverage of sensitive human-interest topics, including gender, crime, and tribal issues. Her reports cover legal proceedings from various district courts as well as the Gujarat High Court (e.g., the Bilkis Bano case remission, POCSO court orders, Public Interest Litigations), the plight of tribal communities, and broader social conflicts (e.g., Kheda flogging case).
Local Impact & Disaster Reporting: Excels in documenting the immediate impact of events on communities, such as the political and civic fallout of the Vadodara floods, the subsequent public anger, and the long-delayed river redevelopment projects, Harni Boat Tragedy, Air India crash, bringing out a blend of stories from the investigations as well as human emotions.
Special Interest Beat: She tracks incidents concerning Non-Resident Gujaratis (NRIs) including crime and legal battles abroad, issues of illegal immigration and deportations, as well as social events connecting the local Gujarati experience to the global diaspora. ... Read More
