‘Bereft of reasons’: Telangana HC sides with Airports Authority of India, quashes revenue authorities’ 2008 land resumption order

The petition concerns a four-decade-old land dispute between the AAI and the revenue authorities. The land was alienated by the Andhra Pradesh Government to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in 1966-67 for establishing a radio navigational aid (VOR), which was commissioned and became operational in 1971. A 305-m area around the VOR had to be kept obstruction-free for air safety.

From 1988 to 1990, the AAI repeatedly wrote to the mandal revenue officer (MRO) requesting the original sale/allotment deed, which the AAI had misplaced. The AAI consistently affirmed that the land had been fully utilised for the VOR and safe air operations. In 1991, the Government issued a showcause notice to the AAI, proposing to take back the land citing alleged failure to utilise it.

The AAI’s requests for demarcation and documents continued until 2007, when the MRO informed it that the land had been surveyed and demarcated, and was surrounded by an AAI compound wall. However, on January 9, 2008, the Serilingampally tahsildar passed an order for the resumption of the “unutilised” land.

When the AAI filed a writ petition challenging this order earlier, the high court allowed it and directed the respondents to take action “in accordance with law”. Following this, the tahsildar issued a new notice dated February 26, 2008, proposing resumption.

The impugned order stated that “the AAI failed to produce any documentary proof about the alienation and the land is very valuable and required for public purpose and that the AAI has failed to show the usage of the land for which it was given possession”.

In his judgment, Justice Kumar emphasised that the land resumption was handled improperly and without due process. He noted that the orders were issued without giving the petitioner, the AAI, an opportunity to be heard and without involving the Ministry of Civil Aviation. The AAI challenged the proceedings initiated by the tahsildar, arguing that the resumption was illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and violated the principles of natural justice.

The court specifically highlighted that directing the petitioner to hand over the possession of the land without prior intimation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation was a critical procedural failure. It remarked that the action “is not only improper but also against the principles of natural justice”.

In conclusion, Justice Kumar stated that the February 26, 2008, resumption order was “bereft of reasons, lacks jurisdiction and without any reference/intimation to the Ministry of Civil Aviation”.