Remote receiving station land used to rehabilitate slum dwellers, AAI fails to vacate it as promised to court.
Taking a stringent view of “misleading” facts put before the court by the Airports Authority of India (AAI), the Bombay high court earlier this month issued a show-cause notice to the public sector undertaking and its chairman asking why criminal contempt proceedings should not be issued against them. The notice is returnable in two weeks.
The petition was filed by one Anwar Agboatwala whose 12 acres of ancestral land in Dahisar was acquired by the AAI in 2007 in order to set up a remote receiving station (RRS).
Agboatwala had in his earlier petition in 2007, contended that although his land was acquired for setting up an RRS, the AAI was using it to rehabilitate slum dwellers. Using the land for a purpose other than the one it was acquired for was not permissible in law, he contended.
In October 2007, the AAI filed an affidavit before the court stating that the land will not be used for any other purpose and the encroachments will be removed within three months. However, it was not done.
Enquiries made by Agboatwala under the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, revealed that the as per a resolution July 24, 2007, the AAI board had approved the transfer of 50% of the land acquired for the RRS for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. Moreover, the government of India had approved the transfer of 32 acres — including Agboatwala's 12 acres — of the land acquired for RRS for slum rehabilitation.
In a fresh petition filed this year, Agboatwala's counsel CM Korade and Leena Adhvaryu told the court that the AAI had suppressed its resolution of July 2007 when it assured the court of clearing the encroachments from Agboatwala's land in October 2007.
Irked at the AAI's conduct, justice DK Deshmukh and justice RP Sondurbaldota observed, “ We prima facie find that Respondent 5 (AAI) has interfered with the course of justice by suppressing relevant material from the court. Considering that the Respondent 5 is a public sector undertaking, in our opinion, such a conduct on their part is totally unacceptable.”
The judges maintained that the AAI, in the earlier petition, had misled the court and got an order in its favour. “ In our opinion, if the litigants are permitted to do so, confidence of the people in the institution of the court itself will be shaken.”
The judges said that the AAI had shown complete disregard to the court's order and made no attempt to clear the encroachments despite having made a solemn statement before the court.
“Not only that there has been disobedience of the order passed by the court in that regard, but an attempt is being made to mislead the court in that regard also,” the court observed.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}