IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13658 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.13693 OF 2009 In WRIT PETITION NO : 13658 of 2009 Between: Flytech Aviation Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956, Having its Regd. Office at 3rd and 4th Floors, Nagam Towers, NTR Circle, Begumpet, Hyderabad, rep. by its Executive Director Capt. K. Mamatha. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safadrgunj Airport, New Delhi. 2 The Airport Director, Airport Authority of India Office of Airport Authority of India, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 The Estate Officer, Airport Director, Airport Authority of India, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 12-6-2009 in CMA No. 111/2006 passed by the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and order dt. 28-4-2006 passed by the 3rd respondent as being illegal and arbitrary and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO In WRIT PETITION NO : 13693 of 2009 Between: Flytech Aviation Ltd., a Company incorporated Under the Companies Act 1956, having its regd. Office at 3rd and 4th Floors, Nagam Towers NTR Circle, Begumpet, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Executive Director Capt K. Mamatha .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Airport Authority of India, through its Chairman Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Safadrgunj Airport, New Delhi. 2 The Airport Director, Airport Authority of India Office of Airport Authority of India, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 3 The Estate Officer, Airport Director Airport Authority of India, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order/s more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order dt. 12-6-2009 in CMA No.112/2006 passed by the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and order dt. 28-4-2006 passed by the 3rd respondent as being illegal and arbitrary and be pleased to pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.B.VIJAYSEN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.E.MADAN MOHAN RAO The Court made the following common order : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.13658 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.13693 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER : The petitioner in these two writ petitions is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of the Pilot Training, Aircraft Maintenance, Engineering Material and other Allied Services. These two writ petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Court of the District Judge, Rangareddy, dated 12.06.2009, in CMA.Nos.111 & 112 of 2006 respectively confirming the orders of eviction passed by the 3rd respondent in exercise of the powers conferred under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 as arbitrary and illegal. The facts, in brief, are as under : The 1st respondent – Airport Authority of India is the Authority constituted under the Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was awarded a licence for Hanger space to an extent of 465 sq. mts. at Nadergul Airfield vide proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28.2.1996 for the purpose of running a Pilot Training Institute. Alleging that the petitioner had unauthorizedly occupied the other areas, the 1st respondent Authority filed E.O. Case No.5 of 2001 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 seeking a declaration that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant and for demolishing the unauthorized constructions made by it and also for eviction and damages. The claim of the 1st respondent in E.O. Case No.5 of 2001 was confined only to the areas under occupation of the petitioner other than the Hanger space of 465 sq. mts. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the 1st respondent filed another case namely E.O. Case No.1 of 2005 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking eviction of the petitioner from the additional areas under occupation of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had occupied 12, 597 sq.mts. Both E.O. Case Nos.5 of 2001 and 1 of 2005 were allowed by the 3rd respondent by separate orders dated 28.4.2006 and in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 (1) read with Section 7 (2) of the Act the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises in question within 15 days. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner filed CMA.Nos.111 & 112 of 2006 in the Court of the District Judge, Rangareddy under Section 9 of the Act. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Judge, by common order, dated 12.6.2009, dismissed both the Appeals with costs. Aggrieved by the said common order, these writ petitions are filed. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the respondents 3 and 1 that after expiry of the licence period from 1.3.2002 the entire area in occupation of the petitioner has become unauthorized occupation. The material on record shows that the occupation of the schedule premises by the petitioner was not regularized by the 1st respondent and the constructions were made by the petitioner unauthorizedly and illegally. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent was justified in ordering eviction. The learned District Judge, on re-appreciation of the entire material available on record, had rightly confirmed the orders passed by the 3rd respondent and the same cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Hence, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. However, an undertaking has been filed on behalf of the petitioner company before this Court stating that about 300 students are undergoing Pilot Training and Aircraft Maintenance Engineering in the petitioner institute being run in the airfield which is the subject-matter of these writ petitions and since the premises has been kept under lock and key by the respondent No.6 from 7.7.2009 onwards, the entire activity of their Flying Academy has come to standstill. In the circumstances, while undertaking to vacate the property in question within a period of five months, a request has been made to re-deliver the property in question to the petitioner company for conducting their activities. It is also specifically stated in the undertaking that the petitioner will not make any additions or alterations to the existing structures at the airfield. The said undertaking dated 10.07.2009 may be extracted as under : “The petitioner company hereby undertakes to vacate the property under licence at Nadergul airfield within a period of five months if the property which is the subject matter of EO Case No.5/2001 and EO Case No.1/2005, is re-delivered to us for conducting our activities. We further undertake that we shall not make any additions or alterations to the existing structures at the airfield.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the undertaking filed by the petitioner before this Court, I deem it appropriate to grant five months time from today to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents across the bar assured that the premises in question, the custody of which was already taken would be re- delivered to the petitioner so as to enable it to conduct its activities for a period of five months in terms of the undertaking given by it before this Court. Accordingly, the undertaking given by the petitioner dated 10.7.2009 is made part of the record and the petitioner is permitted to continue in possession for a period of five months from today. Subject to the above, these two writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 10.07.2009 RAR