Amusing and concerning that residential buildings come up around airport even before airport is built: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court on Monday expressed bemusement and concern at how builders had initiated construction of residential projects around the proposed Navi Mumbai airport even as the airport is yet to be built..A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik said that such a tendency raised concerns because the high rises around the airport would then cause aviation safety issues for aircrafts which are landing and taking off from the airport.“What is amusing to us is that airport comes up first and then buildings. Ideally airport must come first. Here you will have to check how airport can be accommodated. That is amusing to us. Even before airport has come up there is construction, then the airport will be tight, that concerns us,” the Court remarked.The Court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging flagrant violations on the part of developers who construct buildings around the airport area.During the course of hearing, the Bench was informed that the Airport Authority of India (AAI) had granted permissions to 104 of the 123 applications by developers seeking clearance.The Bench was bemused that even before the airport construction had started residential projects were sprouting..During an earlier hearing, the Bench had asked the AAI to inform through an affidavit number of permissions granted by authority to construct buildings beyond permissible height limits.When the matter was taken up today, the Bench was informed that permissions had been granted in compliance with 2015 rules by the Ministry of Civil Aviation pertaining to Height Restrictions for Safeguarding of Aircraft Operations.Upon examining the affidavit, the Bench asked the petitioner Yashwant Shenoy to specify how relaxation of height restrictions was in violation of any provisions of law.“We are concerned with statutory violation. If there is breach, then we will remedy breach, if there is no statutory violation then how are we to act. We also feel an expert in the field is required to appear before us to explain,” the Bench said.It then directed Shenoy to file an affidavit explaining what the exact violation of statutory provisions was. .[Read live thread of hearing]