The Gujarat High Court addressed multiple petitions filed by real estate developers against actions taken by authorities over alleged violations of height clearance norms. The Court examined whether demolition of structures can be insisted upon before assessing actual aviation safety risks.
Background of the Case
The batch of petitions arose from disputes between several developers, including Mahil Infra, and the Airport Authority of India (AAI) over height restrictions applicable to constructions near Ahmedabad airport.
The petitioners had undertaken residential and commercial projects after obtaining necessary permissions, including No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from AAI under aviation safety rules. These NOCs allowed construction up to a specified elevation above mean sea level.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Pawan Khera, Flags ‘Political Rivalry’ Angle in Assam Case
However, after completion of construction, authorities alleged that the buildings exceeded the permissible height limits. In some cases, the excess ranged between approximately 3 to 5 meters.
The developers argued that the issue arose due to variations in recorded ground elevation rather than any unauthorized construction. They maintained that the actual height of the buildings from ground level strictly adhered to approved plans.
Following these findings, municipal authorities issued notices halting construction and calling for removal of the alleged excess portions. This also led to denial of building use permissions, affecting occupancy.
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that:
- The constructions were carried out strictly as per sanctioned plans and permissions.
- The alleged excess height was due to discrepancies in ground elevation data, which was beyond the control of the developers.
- Authorities acted arbitrarily by demanding demolition without first determining whether the structures actually posed any risk to aircraft operations.
The petitioners emphasized the importance of conducting an aeronautical study, which evaluates whether a structure interferes with flight safety.
“The respondents cannot insist on demolition as a precondition without first determining whether the structure actually constitutes a safety hazard,” it was argued.
They further pointed out that in several similar cases, authorities had granted revised height clearances after conducting such studies, highlighting possible inconsistency in approach.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Stays NCLT Order Shifting Case Scrutiny to Delhi, Flags Delay Concerns
The Airport Authority of India opposed the petitions, contending that:
- The constructions were in violation of the NOCs granted earlier.
- As per applicable guidelines, any request for revised height clearance can only be considered after bringing the structure in conformity with the original permission.
- The petitioners themselves had provided ground elevation data at the time of seeking approval and cannot later dispute it.
The respondents maintained that allowing post-construction regularization without compliance would undermine aviation safety regulations.
The High Court noted that all petitions involved a common issue relating to height restrictions and were therefore decided together.
The Court took into account the petitioners’ contention that the alleged violation arose due to variation in ground elevation and not due to deliberate deviation from approved construction plans.
It also considered the role of an aeronautical study under the applicable rules, which is meant to assess whether a structure actually poses a hazard to aircraft operations.
The bench observed that such a study plays a crucial role in determining the impact of structures on aviation safety.
The Gujarat High Court disposed of the batch of petitions by directing the competent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners in accordance with law.
The Court emphasized that the request for aeronautical study and revision of height clearance should be examined by the authorities following due process.
The matters were thus decided with directions for appropriate consideration by the concerned authorities, without issuing blanket reliefs as sought by the petitioners.
Case Details
Case Title: Mahil Infra (Partnership Firm) vs Airport Authority of India & Ors.
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 3549 of 2024 (with connected matters)
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
Decision Date: 30 April 2026
