Govt issues draft rules for demolishing obstructions near airports
The government has issued draft rules to regulate and remove obstructions such as buildings and trees that interfere with aircraft operations around airports. The draft Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees, etc) Rules, 2025, were released under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, on Wednesday. They are open to public feedback for 21 days.
The proposed rules seek to replace the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions) Rules, 1994, and will come into force on the date of their publication. They empower the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to act against any structure violating height restrictions specified in government notifications.
'Under the proposed rules, any building or tree that violates notified height restrictions around airports may face demolition or height reduction orders from...DGCA... Owners will be served notices, required to submit building or tree details, and cooperate with physical inspections by airport authorities,' says the draft, a copy of which HT has seen.
Airport authorities will be required to notify the owner and conduct physical verification when such obstructions are identified. 'Owners will be required to submit structural details within 60 days, or an additional 60 days if an extension is granted,' says the draft. 'If the DGCA determines, after providing an opportunity for a hearing, that a building or tree violates safety norms, an order can be issued for its demolition, trimming, or reduction in height.'
In cases of non-compliance, the district collector will be authorised to enforce demolition or trimming procedures for the obstructions that will be treated as unauthorised construction. 'On receiving the report from the officer-in-charge of the aerodrome, the district collector shall carry out forthwith the demolition of the building or the cutting of the tree or reduction in height of the building, as the case may be, in the same manner and by the same procedure as is followed in case of demolition of any unauthorised construction...'
Aggrieved individuals may file appeals to designated appellate officers using a prescribed form and fee. Final orders have to be complied with within 60 days.
The proposed rules say that the compensation may be available only for compliant or pre-existing structures. New constructions violating notified height restrictions will not be eligible for compensation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC order directing arrest of TN police officer in abduction case
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Madras High Court order directing the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram in a case pertaining to the abduction of a 17-year-old boy, Live Law reported. The top court also transferred the investigation in the case to the state's Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department. The Tamil Nadu government agreed to it. Further, the Supreme Court urged the chief justice of the Madras High Court to transfer matters related to the abduction to a bench different from the one hearing Jayaram's case, The Indian Express reported. The Madras High Court had on June 16 ordered Jayaram's arrest in a kidnapping case that also named Kilvaithinakuppam MLA Poovai M Jagan Moorthy as a suspect. The police officer claimed that he was subsequently taken into custody for about 24 hours, while the state government maintained that he had merely joined the investigation. The case stems from a police complaint filed by one Lakshmi, whose elder son married a woman from Theni district against the wishes of her family. Fearing retaliation, the couple went into hiding. In a bid to trace them, members of the woman's family, with the help of hired men, allegedly abducted Lakshmi's younger son from their home. The 17-year-old boy was later found abandoned near a hotel with visible injuries. During the investigation, the police discovered that an official vehicle linked to Jayaram was allegedly used in the abduction. The woman's family had reportedly also sought help from Moorthy. The MLA is accused of being involved in the abduction and is also alleged to have later prevented the police from questioning him by having party supporters gather around his residence. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had described the High Court order directing Jayaram's arrest as shocking. 'I have been a judge for 18 years,' Bhuyan had said. 'I never knew I had this power [to direct arrest].' The Supreme Court then asked the Tamil Nadu government why the officer was suspended if he was not arrested. On Thursday, lawyer Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, said that Jayaram was not suspended because of the High Court order, The Indian Express reported. He said that the official was suspended as per the provisions of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, under which a civil servant against whom a criminal inquiry is pending can be suspended.
The Wire
4 hours ago
- The Wire
A University That Punishes Dissent
The following is an open letter to JNU vice chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit (and if he cares to read it, ex-vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar). § Dear Professor Pandit, After an agonising wait of five years for my gratuity illegally withheld by the JNU administration, the Hon'ble Delhi high court has ordered JNU to pay the amount with interest of 6%. Previous to this, I had approached the same court for the recovery of my leave encashment dues, which were also illegally withheld by JNU. The court then (2022) awarded 9% interest. It is more than evident that JNU has acted illegally in withholding my dues (and those of other retired faculty). At the time of my retirement in January 2020, I received no written explanation for the same, despite many written and oral requests to the then-registrar Pramod Kumar. Finally, I was sent a letter on March 17, 2020, saying that I was refused leave encashment and gratuity pending an enquiry into misconduct (which incidentally had been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi high court). The previous communication I received was on July 24, 2019, when I was informed that under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) (CCS/CCA) Rules, 1965, I would be subjected to an enquiry for 'misconduct'. The charge was violating Rule 7 of the CCS/CCA rules. The enquiry was purportedly about a silent and peaceful march on July 31, 2018 taken out by about 200 JNU faculty around the campus, for about half an hour, without disrupting any academic or administrative duties. Less than 50 of us were singled out for the show cause, and later, chargesheet. I referred to the service contract which I had signed when I joined JNU in September 2009. It speaks nowhere of CCS/CCA rules. It only says that I agree to 'Statutes, Ordinances, Regulation and rules for the time being in force in the University…' Since the matter regarding the applicability of CCS/CCA rules to JNU faculty is still pending, let me acquaint you with a brief history of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers' Association (JNUTA)'s struggle which began in February 2016, when Prof Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar had just been appointed as VC of JNU. This was no coincidence. The JNUTA had decided, through a democratic and consultative process, following the turbulence on the campus, and the arrest of some of our students under Section 124a of the IPC, that it would oppose the attempts of the administration to challenge and alter the long-established traditions of debate, dialogue and discussion, including dissent, and norms and practices that recognised seniority in administrative duties. It planned to do this in a number of peaceful and constructive ways. Also read | Chargesheets, Denied Pension, Leaves: JNU's Punitive Measures Against Dissenting Faculty One of these was a month-long series of lectures on nationalism which was held at the steps of the administration in February and March 2016. The events were extremely well-attended, live- streamed and eventually became a book entitled What the Nation Really Needs to Know. Both the YouTube lectures and the book have received widespread attention and use; the book has sold well over 10,000 copies in addition to being translated into many different Indian languages. I hasten to point out that this 'Teach In' was in addition to the classroom teaching, research, administrative work, etc which all JNU teachers continued without interruption. It was, in short, well in keeping with JNU faculty's commitment to innovative teaching and learning. The JNUTA organised a series of other creative and educative events in many parts of the campus (following the Delhi high court order forbidding such actions by students within 100 metres of the administration building). These have continued over the years. None of these were disruptive, noisy or at the cost of the teaching/evaluation/administrative responsibilities of teachers. Overall, the then-new JNU administration could not challenge the JNUTA academically or on any intellectual grounds. Its preferred mode was to seek the support of the judiciary, which has also largely failed. The two cases referred to above clearly show that the JNU administration did not have a legal leg to stand on. None of its executive orders have stood legal scrutiny in case after case, whether it is related to the denial of sabbatical leave, denial of pensions or denial of NOCs to those who wished to travel abroad for fellowships. But we have all learned that in 'New India/Naya Bharat', the process is the punishment, even when there is no wrongdoing. The university soon received adverse publicity nationwide, and there was severe erosion of its carefully built-up academic reputation, which the JNU administration did nothing to rectify. Instead, teachers were maligned in multiple ways for opposing the rapid changes to long-established norms in the university. For instance, chairpersons were appointed, no longer on the basis of seniority, which was the well-established norm, but in arbitrary fashion. Centre for Historical Studies faculty attempted in 2017 to persuade the newly appointed chair, who had superseded many other senior faculty (in direct violation of long-accepted norms) against accepting the responsibility. We failed. (Later, that out-of-turn appointment was reversed by the Hon'ble high court). Instead, as punishment, 12 or 13 of us were asked to appear before an enquiry committee at the Equal Opportunity Office in JNU in 2017/2018, ostensibly for having been discriminatory towards the chair. To date, the report of this committee and its findings have not been made public or shared with all those who repeatedly appeared before the committee, and also submitted explanations in writing. Clearly, there was nothing at all to substantiate these charges. The only goal was harassment. Such mental and psychic harassment continued on many fronts even as the 'dilution' of, and assault on, JNU's original mandate and formidable reputation as an institution of higher learning continued. The academic standing of this premier institution in social sciences and humanities, international relations, languages, and life and physical sciences was undermined in multiple ways. Despite all data indicating a steep fall in enrollments in engineering studies nationwide, Prof Jagadesh Kumar began an undergraduate engineering programme with neither faculty nor buildings. Likewise, a Management Studies Centre was established, once more without teachers and buildings, and student enrolments begun. Both of these efforts basically encashed JNU's carefully built-up brand value in social sciences and the humanities, while undermining it as an institution of higher learning. Finally, on January 5, 2020, having failed to academically or legally dent the formidable spirit of the JNU teaching and learning community, a physical attack, using an unruly armed brigade of 150 storm troopers, was launched on the JNU campus, at which many students and faculty were injured. Although CCTV cameras revealed the identity of the attackers, they were allowed to leave unscathed. To this day, five years later, neither the JNU administration nor the Delhi police have submitted their reports on what happened on that fateful day. We were hopeful that a new vice chancellor, and especially one who has had the privilege of studying in JNU, such as yourself, would restore the intellectual ethos, ethical values and uniquely forged civility that had been systematically undermined under Prof Jagadesh Kumar. You have gone on public record several times praising the achievements of this university. But, alas, you have not lived up to these expectations, and the dismantling of the institution has continued apace, as you have remained steadfastly loyal to your political masters. Also read: Political Intolerance and Declining Academic Freedom in India Prof Pandit, let me conclude with a few personal details. When I retired in January 2020, there was no one to teach the compulsory Capitalism and Colonialism course which I had co-taught with pleasure for a decade. I agreed, in February 2020, to deliver the lectures for the first half of this course. For this, I never asked for, nor was given, any remuneration (and not even a cup of tea was forthcoming from the then-chair of the department!) Thereafter, five of my PhD students remained in my supervision and in continuous touch, and I saw them through their doctoral degrees until their vivas were held (the last was in 2023). In other words, in the best spirit of an earlier JNU ethos, I did not abandon my students even when the institution I had loyally served was abandoning me. The harassment of currently employed faculty who were issued the chargesheet continues, in the form of promotions denied, and the denial of administrative responsibility, withholding permission for leave, etc. Here, again, the JNU administration is bound to lose legally, but the long-drawn-out process is itself the punishment. I have concluded, given the steadfast adherence to illegality by your administration and the previous one, that such recklessness arises from a complete lack of accountability on your part. It is, after all, the taxpayer's money that has to compensate the JNU teachers, such as myself, who were denied their retirement rights in time. I am painfully reminded of the senseless and illiterate noise regarding JNU students and their 'exploitation' of the low fee structure that was aggressively generated after 2016, in articles, WhatsApp messages and TV channels alike. The JNU administration did nothing to counter such relentless calumny. Where are those guardians of taxpayers' money now when lakhs of rupees are being paid out by JNU/the state, for interest on dues which should have been paid a long time ago and for lawyers' fees? Why have those who so long and loudly demanded 'accountability' from students now fallen silent about lakhs of rupees spent on cases which were a tactic to delay, not win? I am suggesting, Prof Pandit, that it will set a very good example and high standard for institutional and personal ethics, if you and Prof Jagadesh Kumar put your money where your mouth is. You should jointly agree to compensate the University – and the Indian state, and the beleaguered tax payer – for the lakhs of rupees in interest that have been paid to each of us for these illegally delayed retirement dues and lawyers' fees on both sides. That will usher in the 'Naya Bharat' that we so desperately need. Janaki NairProfessor of History (retd)JNU Janaki Nair taught at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Govt issues draft rules for demolishing obstructions near airports
The government has issued draft rules to regulate and remove obstructions such as buildings and trees that interfere with aircraft operations around airports. The draft Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions Caused by Buildings and Trees, etc) Rules, 2025, were released under the Bharatiya Vayuyan Adhiniyam, 2024, on Wednesday. They are open to public feedback for 21 days. The proposed rules seek to replace the Aircraft (Demolition of Obstructions) Rules, 1994, and will come into force on the date of their publication. They empower the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to act against any structure violating height restrictions specified in government notifications. 'Under the proposed rules, any building or tree that violates notified height restrictions around airports may face demolition or height reduction orders Owners will be served notices, required to submit building or tree details, and cooperate with physical inspections by airport authorities,' says the draft, a copy of which HT has seen. Airport authorities will be required to notify the owner and conduct physical verification when such obstructions are identified. 'Owners will be required to submit structural details within 60 days, or an additional 60 days if an extension is granted,' says the draft. 'If the DGCA determines, after providing an opportunity for a hearing, that a building or tree violates safety norms, an order can be issued for its demolition, trimming, or reduction in height.' In cases of non-compliance, the district collector will be authorised to enforce demolition or trimming procedures for the obstructions that will be treated as unauthorised construction. 'On receiving the report from the officer-in-charge of the aerodrome, the district collector shall carry out forthwith the demolition of the building or the cutting of the tree or reduction in height of the building, as the case may be, in the same manner and by the same procedure as is followed in case of demolition of any unauthorised construction...' Aggrieved individuals may file appeals to designated appellate officers using a prescribed form and fee. Final orders have to be complied with within 60 days. The proposed rules say that the compensation may be available only for compliant or pre-existing structures. New constructions violating notified height restrictions will not be eligible for compensation.
