1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/714/2024 Shri Mohammed Nazeem Khan Vs. The Airport Director and Another Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi … for the petitioner Ms Babita Das … for the respondent August 4, 2026 [SR] Item No.1 1. The subject matter in the writ petition is that a proceeding conducted by the Estate Officer of the Airports Authority of India purportedly under the powers conferred under section 28A to C of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994. 2. The maintainability of the writ petition is questioned by the respondents. Any proceeding before the Estate Officer must be challenged in the form of appeal under section 28K of the Act of 1994, before the High Court. 3. It is now well settled that in the event of infraction of the principles of natural justice and where extreme and grave prejudice are ground of challenge, the writ court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding availability of alternative statutory remedy. 4. The infraction of natural justice is recorded by the Coordinate Bench in an order dated 16.12.2024 when the writ petition came to be adjudicated particularly in paragraph 5 thereof. 2 5. It appears that a show cause notice as to why the petitioner should not be proceeded against under section 28 C was required to be answered by the petitioner on the very date which it issued. 6. The Coordinate Bench, however, addressed the grievance and gave time to the writ petitioner to respond to the same and file objection. Since the writ petition was admitted, this Court feels that it would extremely onerous on the petitioner if he is relegated to the statutory remedy after exchange of pleadings. The writ petition is therefore maintainable. 7. The subject matter of dispute is that a notice issued by the respondents under section 28C of the Act. The writ petitioner as per the notice was an unauthorized occupation of the certain land under survey no. 66, 67, 68 at Lambaline Village, Port Blair Tehsil. The petitioner claims no right in respect of survey Nos. 66, 67. He only claims rights, since through the predecessor-in-interest since 1929 in respect of 175 Sq.mtrs under Survey No.68/1 and 430 sq.mtrs under survey No.68/5. 8. The final order passed in the eviction proceedings initiated under section 28 of the Act, 1994 by the respondents has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit affirmed on 21.02.2025. 9. A cursory glance of the said judgment dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 indicates that there is absolutely no discussion as to how the Airports Authority of India has right and title over the property to any of the three survey numbers. 3 10. Admittedly there is no document to indicate as to how the Airports Authorities came to own survey NO.68 of the property mentioned in the schedule of the judgment. 11. At the bar, learned counsel for the respondents has handed over a document dated 07.03.1997 purportedly issued by the Patwari that the land in question was offered for extension of aerodrome vide LAC Case No.4/134/7371/R dated 28.10.1965. This document did not form part of the proceeding before the Estate Officer. 12. A further demarcation order dated 20.06.2024 issued by the Tehsildar, Port Lair is relied upon in affidavit-in-opposition by the private respondent. This document also does not part of the records of the proceeding before the Estate Officer. 13. It is mystery as to how the Airport Authority of India has any title over the interest of survey no.68 in the schedule set out in the impugned order. The final order of eviction dated 17.02.2025 is therefore perverse. 14. It appears that the petitioner had obtained a decree of permanent injunction dated 23.03.2019 from the Civil Judge Junior Division at Port Blair in O.S.No.108/2017 directing the respondents to seek eviction only in lawful proceedings. The appeal therefrom sought to be filed by the respondents AAI filed after 1949 days delay which was initially condoned by the District Court. The condonation has been set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(c) No.20267/2025 vide order dated 12.03.2016. The decree of the civil court dated 23.03.2019 has, therefore, reached finality. 4 15. In the light of the above, this Court finds that the impugned is absolutely perverse, not based on any evidence of title of the AAI. The question of any eviction proceeding in the absence of title of AAI in respect of survey 68/1 & 68/5, under the provision of Act of 1994 does not and cannot arise. 16. The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the Estate Officer, AAI is quashed and set aside. 17. The petitioner’s possession in respect of the subject property shall not be disturbed. 18. This order shall however not prevent the AAI/respondents from establishing their right title over the property in accordance with law and thereafter takeout appropriate proceeding for eviction in accordance with law, as they may be advised. 19. With the aforesaid observations, WPA/714/2024 is allowed and disposed of. 20. The impugned judgment stands set aside and consequently a show cause notice dated 17.12.2025 shall also stand quashed and set aside. 21. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Rajasekhar Mantha, J. )