Bombay High Court
Nikhil Vithal Jhaveri And Anr vs Chief Executive Officer Pune ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally
WRIT PETITION NO. 9218 OF 2025
signed by
VINA
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
2026.01.28
11:38:03
+0530
Mr. Nikhil Vithal Jhaveri & Anr. ....Petitioners
Versus
Chief Executive Officer,
Pune Cantonment Board & Ors. ....Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9220 OF 2025
Mrs. Mamta Jain ....Petitioners
Versus
Chief Executive Officer,
Pune Cantonment Board & Ors. ....Respondents
----
Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, Mr. Bhushan Deshmukh a/w.
Mr. Abinash Pradhan, Ms. Garima Agrawal and Mr. Yash Dedhia i/b
Wadia Ghandy & Co., Advocates for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Mr. K. J. Presswalla and Mr. Tushad Kakalia along with Mr.
Sandeep Goyal i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe,
Advocates for Respondent No. 1.
Mrs. Shehnaz V. Bharucha and Ms. Madhubala Kajale a/w A A
Ansari, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026 P.C. :-
1. In Writ Petition Nos. 9218 & 9220 of 2025, as on date, considering the short order that we are passing in the light of the extensive submissions of the learned Senior Advocate, Dr. Saraf, we Rohit Ghuge - PA 1 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt are not adverting to their submissions. Suffice it to say that, on instructions from the Petitioners, the Petitioners are agreeable to bind themselves to certain conditions on the basis of which permission to construct a residential accommodation for personal use only may be granted, until the lease lasts. The Petitioners are concerned with Plots 5-A and 5-B. The first round of the lease of 30 years was followed by two extensions. The lease agreements are valid until 2033.
2. These plots are situated in the Pune Cantonment and each plot measures approximately 0.725 acres, forming part of a single parcel of land admeasuring 3.10 acres situated at Pune Cantonment, recorded in the General Land Register of the Cantonment at Survey No. 30. These plots are identified as Plot 5-A in Survey No. 30/1 and Plot 5-B in Survey No. 30/2.
3. The Petitioners have applied for permission to construct residential bungalows/dwellings as permissible under Condition 1(5) under Schedule VIII of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937. As such, it is not an anathema to construct a dwelling house. The embargo is only not to erect any building other than a dwelling house.
Rohit Ghuge - PA 2 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt
4. The Petitioners in the first petition seek permission to construct a bungalow for personal residential use. The Petitioners in the second Petition desire to construct a two-floor building comprising eight rooms. Such applications were made in 2020. The lease, as per the present extension, subsists until 2033, and it is undisputed that, depending upon the policy and the Rules, a further extension is permissible.
5. By these Petitions, the Petitioners have assailed the reports of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, thereby refusing to grant permission for construction, and the subsequent rejection by the Pune Cantonment Board relying upon the objections raised by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
6. During the course of the submissions today, it was conveyed to us that since the lease is to expire in 2033, there remains a period of only eight years. Under Clause 2(II)(a) of the Land Policy in Cantonments, which was shown to us, a lessee who has standing immovable property on leased land, can claim ex gratia compensation equal to 50% of the value of authorized constructions, if the lease is not renewed, resulting in the constructions vesting in the Government.
Rohit Ghuge - PA 3 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt
7. It is in the above backdrop that the learned Senior Advocate representing the Petitioners, points out that adjacent plot holders bearing Nos. 5-C and 5-D have been granted permission to construct and that their buildings are standing. He submits that the Petitioners are willing to bind themselves to the following conditions, for which an independent affidavit is also proposed to be filed, as a condition for grant of permission to construct:
a. The construction, if permitted, shall be used only as a home by the Petitioners for personal residential purposes. b. The bungalows shall not be apartments or a multi-storeyed high-rise cluster of flats.
c. No third party rights or encumbrances would be created on such bungalows.
d. These bungalows would not be used for commercial purposes. e. The Petitioners would enjoy the said bungalow property as a family-dwelling.
Rohit Ghuge - PA 4 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt f. If the lease is not extended after 2033 and the property vests in the Government, the Petitioners shall not claim ex gratia compensation as provided under Clause 2(II)(a) of the Land Policy in Cantonments.
g. If the building is permitted to be constructed, it will enable the parties to at least enjoy their newly constructed homes for around 8 years, the Petitioners would abide by the policy as may be applicable in 2033 with regard to vesting of the bungalow either with the Government or if the authorities insists.
h. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by non-continuation of the lease and if the Petitioners have any right to assail such a decision, the same would be exercised, but the construction of the bungalow and the bungalow standing on the leased land would not be a ground to be canvassed for claiming equities and such a decision of non-renewal would be assailed only on the basis of the policy then in force and on such grounds of parity as may be available, if others are granted extension."
Rohit Ghuge - PA 5 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt
8. We have perused the Order dated 30/09/2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 5069 of 1997 on 30/09/2005. Though Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had taken the ground that there was a requirement of land for construction of Married Officers' Accommodation, not a single such accommodation has been constructed thereafter, till today. Further, even in 2005, when the judgment was delivered, permission to construct was granted to the plot holder of Plot 5-D.
9. In these set of circumstances and the factual matrix, we expect Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to be pragmatic and to adopt a practical approach, by considering the conditions which the Petitioners agree to bind themselves with, for the purpose of granting permission to construct.
10. To enable the learned Advocate representing Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to take instructions, the matter is adjourned.
11. We would expect the General Officer Commanding in Chief (GoC-in-C) to take a decision keeping in view that building Rohit Ghuge - PA 6 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::
8.as.wp.9218.2025&anr.odt permission was recently granted to Plot 5-D, irrespective of which authority granted it, and to deal with the Petitioners' cases in the light of these aspects.
12. Since we are informed that the GoC-in-C of the Southern Command at Pune would be the officer taking a decision, in the light of the above and convey the same to the Court, we are listing these Petitions on 12th February, 2026, on the urgent supplementary board.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Rohit Ghuge - PA 7 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/01/2026 21:25:31 :::