The Delhi High Court delivered a judgment in a dispute concerning restrictions on the permissible height of a residential tower proposed by Shrishti Infra Projects in the vicinity of the Kolkata Airport. The case arose from a challenge to the conditions imposed by the Airports Authority of India and other regulatory authorities under applicable civil aviation and urban development norms, which capped the height of the building to ensure safe aircraft operations and navigable airspace free from obstructions. The petitioner, a real estate developer, contended that the restrictions were arbitrary, unreasonable, and in excess of statutory mandates, asserting that the authorities had misapplied or misinterpreted the relevant aviation safety guidelines and development control regulations.
The High Court examined the regulatory framework governing the height of structures in proximity to airports, which is designed to balance urban development with aviation safety imperatives. Civil aviation norms and technical standards specify permissible heights within various obstacle limitation surfaces surrounding aerodromes, and the Airports Authority’s clearance process involves assessment of proposed constructions to ensure they do not pose hazards to aircraft movement. In this context, authorities had directed that the building’s height be limited to a specified maximum that fell below the developer’s planned elevation due to its close proximity to flight paths and operational zones.
During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that the imposition of the height cap failed to take into account factual data, topographical considerations, and specific elevation profiles, and that the authorities had not provided a reasoned basis for denying permission to build at the height requested. It was submitted that the developer had complied with all other statutory requirements, and that the restriction on vertical extent was disproportionate to actual safety risks. Legal counsel for the petitioner urged the Court to set aside the restrictive conditions and allow the building to be constructed at the originally planned height.
In response, the respondents, including civil aviation and urban planning authorities, maintained that adherence to obstacle limitation criteria is a non-derogable aspect of aerodrome safety protocol. They emphasised that ensuring uninterrupted safety margins for arriving and departing aircraft is critical, and that regulatory guidelines are based on technical assessments by competent agencies. The authorities submitted that the permissible building heights are prescribed after careful analysis of runway alignments, approach angles, and navigational requirements, and that any encroachment into protected airspace could jeopardise aviation safety.
After considering the submissions and examining the relevant statutory and technical parameters, the Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the height restrictions while clarifying the scope of judicial review in such matters. The Court noted that interference with technical and safety-oriented decisions taken by specialised regulatory bodies is permissible only if such decisions are shown to be irrational, arbitrary, or demonstrably inconsistent with applicable rules. The bench held that aviation safety criteria and obstacle limitation surfaces serve a legitimate and compelling public interest in safeguarding human life and property, and that authorities possess expertise to assess compliance with these standards.
The High Court observed that the regulatory framework strikes a balance between development and hazard prevention, and that courts must give due deference to expert assessments in areas involving specialised technical knowledge. It emphasised that judicial review does not extend to substituting the Court’s assessment for that of a technical authority unless there is manifest illegality or procedural infirmity. In the present case, the Court found no such illegality in the imposition of height limits, and noted that the authorities had acted within the bounds of their powers under civil aviation and urban planning regulations.
Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to the height restrictions imposed on the proposed residential tower near Kolkata Airport. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that structures in close proximity to airports must conform to prescribed height limits to protect air navigation safety, and that developers must obtain necessary clearances from competent authorities before undertaking vertical expansion. It underscored that regulatory mandates aimed at aviation safety carry overriding public interest, and that courts will uphold them unless compelling reasons are demonstrated to warrant intervention.
The ruling serves as a reminder to developers and stakeholders that compliance with aviation and urban development norms is integral to project planning, and that judicial scrutiny of technical decisions will be guided by reasonableness and deference to specialised expertise. The Court’s decision reinforces the primacy of safety considerations in land use and development near aerodromes, and clarifies the limited scope for judicial interference in regulatory determinations grounded in technical standards.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.