Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
According to the petitioner, the repairs were necessary and the same were of such a nature that no permission was required. According to the petitioner, restoration of a dilapidated and / or collapsed wall did not require obtaining prior sanction by giving notice to the Board. It would be relevant to reproduce the stand taken by the petitioner in paragraph viii of the Appeal Memo. The relevant portion reads thus :
"The Appellant submits that even otherwise, the restoration of a dilapidated and/or collapsed wall does not fall within the definition of erection/re- erection within the meaning of Section 235 (2) of the Cantonments Act and therefore do not warrant obtaining prior sanction by giving notice under the section."
The stand of the petitioner in the appeal memo that the restoration of the collapsed wall did not amount to erection/re-erection of building would also have to be taken into account while considering the manner in which the Appellate Authority applied its mind and came to the ultimate conclusion. If it was the case of the petitioner that restoration of a dilapidated and/or collapsed wall did not amount to erection/re-erection of a building and if on the basis of material on record the Appellate Authority found such stand untenable in the light of provisions of said Act and the Revised Land Policy, 1995 then merely because the Appellate Authority did not assign elaborate reasons to support its conclusion, the same by itself would not vitiate the impugned order. We are satisfied that the aforesaid conclusion was arrived at by the Appellate Authority after duly considering the entire material on record along with relevant provisions in that regard.
judgment in wp-1959-14.doc According to the petitioner as stated by him in his memo of appeal the dilapidated and/or collapsed wall was sought to be restored and the existing roof that was leaking was replaced. Thus, it is not a case of merely replacing the roof simplicitor. The nature of work undertaken has the effect of a collapsed mud wall being replaced by the B.B. Masonry wall. Thus, the roof structure of mud which was an out house and thus a "building" as defined by section 2 (d) of the said Act was sought to be restored with B.B. Masonry wall and GI sheet roof. This, therefore, had the effect of making material alteration to the existing structure that was a "building" as defined by Section 2 (d) of the said Act. As the same was without giving notice and there being no sanction of the Board, it was deemed that the petitioner had re-erected a building by making material alteration in terms of provisions of Section 235 (2) (a) of the said Act. Thus, considering entire nature of work carried out as referred to in the inspection note to which there was no serious challenge coupled with the averments of the petitioner in the memo of appeal referred to above, in the facts of the present case it cannot be said that replacing the roof with GI sheets did not amount to material alteration as urged.