Notified defence restrictions do not authorize dispossession without statutory compensation proceedings.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of Site No. 89, SDF Road, SVS Homes Layout, having purchased it by registered sale deed in 2019.

He stated that he had obtained municipal sanction and begun constructing a house on the site.

The site abuts the Air Force Station, Yelahanka.

The petitioner challenged an Air Force communication dated 8 July 2026, which asked the Deputy Commissioner to arrange, among other measures for Aero India 2027, for the stopping of ongoing construction on properties abutting the Station.

The respondents relied on a 2010 Central Government notification and a 2012 Deputy Commissioner’s order imposing restrictions on construction within 100 metres of the Station’s outer parapet.

The petitioner disputed the application of the restriction to his property and relied on the municipal permissions and expenditure incurred.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the 8 July 2026 communication quashed and to obtain directions preventing his dispossession or restraining the authorities from interfering with his property

Whether the petitioner was required to pursue the remedies under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 concerning the restrictions and compensation

Sections 3 and 7 of the Works of Defence Act, 1903 provide for declarations and restrictions on the use and enjoyment of land near defence works; restrictions take effect upon publication of the notice contemplated by Section 3(2).

The Central Government’s notification dated 13 January 2010, issued under those provisions, imposed a 100-metre construction restriction around the listed Air Force Stations, including Yelahanka; the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 30 January 2012 applied restrictions to land within 100 metres of the Station’s technical area.

The Court relied on Air Officer Commanding, Air Force Station, Yelahanka v. Deputy Commissioner and Others, W.P. No. 35240/2014, order dated 7 September 2022, which held that non-compliance with the statutory compensation process did not render the notification a nullity and directed the statutory authorities to identify affected properties and determine compensation under the Act.

The present Court held that the petitioner should avail the remedies contemplated under Sections 9 and 12 of the Act.

The Court considered the impugned communication in the context of the 2010 notification, the 2012 order and the earlier decision concerning restrictions around the same Air Force Station.

In light of that statutory framework, the petitioner’s claims regarding his title, municipal sanction, construction and expenditure did not warrant the writ reliefs sought; the Act provided the route for pursuing his remedies, including in relation to compensation.

The Court nevertheless clarified that he could retain possession, subject to the restrictions imposed under the Act.

It held that the petitioner must pursue the remedies available under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, while permitting him to retain possession subject to the Act’s restrictions.

Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.