4-week deadline: Why Bombay High Court refused to stop eviction of Air India employees from colony on airport land

Court refuses to intervene

• The high court ultimately declined to interfere with the orders passed by the eviction officer, effectively allowing authorities to proceed with the removal of occupants from the airport housing colonies.
• The ruling represents another setback for employees who have been contesting eviction from the Kalina housing quarters for several years on multiple forums.
• With the Supreme Court already having declined to interfere in the earlier batch of cases, the judgment further consolidates the legal position that continued occupation of the airport residential colonies after termination of licence cannot be sustained in law.
• The court ultimately concluded that the occupants were unauthorised licensees of airport premises and that the eviction orders passed under Section 28-B of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 did not warrant judicial interference.

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh upheld the orders issued by the eviction officer against the employees occupying residential quarters in the old Air India Housing Colony at Kalina.

Key issues before Bombay High Court

While deciding the appeals, Bombay High Court framed two principal questions:

• Whether the eviction orders passed under the Airports Authority of India Act required interference by the high court.
• Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings could prevent authorities from evicting employees found to be in unauthorised occupation.

After examining the legal framework and earlier judicial decisions, the court concluded that neither of these grounds justified setting aside the eviction orders.

Dispute rooted in airport privatisation, restructuring

• The appeals were filed by multiple employees, including C M Sonawane, Lokesh Ramnath Ramgude, Ashok Ramesh Bohat, Bhimrao Mahadeo Chavan and others who had challenged the eviction proceedings initiated by the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and Mumbai International Airport Pvt Ltd (MIAL).
• The controversy surrounding the Air India housing colonies traces back to the restructuring and privatisation of airport operations in Mumbai in the early 2000s.
• During the disinvestment process initiated by the government, the AAI floated tenders around 2002–2003 for private participation in the development and management of the Mumbai airport. Following the bidding process, a consortium led by G V K Reddy emerged as the successful bidder.

• Subsequently, an agreement was executed on April 26, 2006, under which the airport assets, including land parcels on which residential colonies had been built for aviation employees, were transferred as part of the operational framework governing the airport’s management.
• These arrangements were formalised through the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA) and related lease deeds between AAI and MIAL.
• The agreements required that airport land be handed over to the operator free from encumbrances.
• Over time, the authorities began initiating eviction proceedings against employees who continued to occupy housing units located on airport land.

Earlier litigation had already gone against employees

• The court noted that the present group of appellants stood on the same footing as another batch of Air India employees whose eviction challenges had already been rejected by the high court.
• In a judgment dated July 15, 2025, the Bombay High Court had dismissed a set of similar appeals and upheld eviction orders passed against employees residing in the same housing colonies.
• That judgment was later challenged before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition (SLP).
• However, the top court dismissed the challenge on November 30, 2025, while granting the occupants time until the same date to hand over possession of the residential premises upon filing undertakings before the high court.
• Against this backdrop, the court observed that the issues raised in the present appeals were largely covered by the earlier ruling.

Eviction notices issued in 2023

• The present proceedings arose after the eviction officer issued show-cause notices on October 4, 2023 under the AAI Act, asking occupants to explain why eviction orders should not be passed against them.
• After considering the responses filed by the occupants, the eviction officer passed orders on November 14, 2024, directing them to vacate the premises.
• The authorities contended that the appellants were employees of Air India Airport Services Limited (AIASL) and were occupying quarters that formed part of airport premises without valid authorisation.
• They also argued that the employees had originally been allotted the residential units under Air India Housing Allotment Rules, which provided accommodation on a leave-and-licence basis, rather than conferring any ownership or tenancy rights.
• Once the licence stood terminated or the circumstances changed following restructuring of airport assets, the occupants were required to vacate the premises.

Employees raise SC/ST discrimination claim

• The employees opposed the eviction orders on multiple legal grounds.
• One of their key arguments was linked to proceedings initiated by the Air Corporation SC/ST Employees Association, which had filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court in 2022 alleging illegal eviction and violation of reservation policies.
• The employees also pointed to a criminal complaint filed before a Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, arguing that eviction during the pendency of those proceedings was impermissible.
• According to the appellants, Section 15-A(8)(c) of the SC/ST Act restrained authorities from taking steps that could harm members of the SC/ST community while related proceedings were pending.
• They also argued that the eviction proceedings were initiated while disputes concerning reservation policies and service conditions were still under adjudication.

Respondents argue eviction applies to all employees

• Opposing the appeals, senior counsel appearing for MIAL argued that the issues raised by the appellants had already been settled in earlier rounds of litigation.
• The respondents maintained that the housing colonies were part of airport land and therefore fell within the definition of “airport premises” under the AAI Act.
• They further contended that the residential units were allotted purely on a licence basis, meaning the occupants had no independent right to continue once the licence period ended.
• Addressing the discrimination claims, the respondents argued that the eviction action was uniformly applicable to all occupants, irrespective of caste or community.
• They emphasised that the reservation policy applied only at the stage of allotment of housing and did not grant any perpetual right to remain in occupation.

Sessions court rejected similar claims

• The Bombay High Court also took note of earlier proceedings before a sessions court dealing with complaints filed under the SC/ST Act.
• In those proceedings, the sessions court had rejected allegations that eviction notices were issued with the intention of harassing members of the SC/ST community.
• The court had observed that the eviction process applied equally to all employees and that there was no prima facie evidence of caste-based discrimination.
• The sessions court had also declined to restrain the implementation of eviction orders.