Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The family members of the petitioners then decided to have their separate residential portions in the said land and for the said purposes after making of the plan of construction they submitted applications before the respondents. As during the said period certain deaths have taken place in the family, applications were made by persons like petitioner No.5 for mutation of his name on the share so obtained by the original family member late Smt. Indira Devi Seth. It appears that persons like petitioners were in need of NOC from the concerned authorities before making the application under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 seeking building permission, therefore such an application was made by the persons like petitioners. Such application when was submitted, the matter was referred to the Defence Estates Officer, Jabalpur, Circle, by the Cantonment Executive Officer. Certain spot inspection was done, reports were submitted and NOCs were issued by the competent authorities. However, later on the matter was proceeded and certain guidance was sought from the Director, Defence Estates, Central Command. Despite issuance of the NOC, it was said that matter was required to be re-examined with reference to the letter dated 19.04.2006 and separate lease deeds were required to be executed in respect of each lessee of sub divided portion. This exercise be initiated and then only application may be considered. With reference to the aforesaid, the impugned communication was issued on 1st May, 2007 and ultimately the claim made by the petitioners was rejected, against which they file an appeal but the said appeal have been dismissed, therefore, the writ petition is required to be filed.

5. It is contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that once the partition was duly accepted by the authorities of the respondents, sub division of the leased land was accepted, it was not open to them to say that sub lease have not been executed. If formally any action was required to be taken to execute the sub lease deed that was required to be done by the respondents as the original owners of the land and not by the petitioners. If that was not done, by conduct the respondents were liable to be estopped to say that sub lease deed were not granted. It is further put forth that mutation of the name of family members was already directed and in fact the names of persons who have purchased the land in question, were already required to be recorded in the GLR. That was again the action on the part of the respondents-authorities and this was not to be done by the petitioners. However, petitioners were found to be in continuous possession of the land in question and that being so, only for the purposes of construction of separate residential units if a proposal was made by the petitioners, it was not to be rejected in the manner indicated in the order. It is vehemently contended that when the building plan applications were submitted, the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 were applicable. The new Act came into force in the year 2006 only. Having considered the applications of the petitioners under the new Act, wrong was committed by the respondents and the same was rejected on the flimsy ground, which were not made out. Taking this Court to the order dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P-14), learned Senior counsel would contend that the rejection of the application of the petitioners was not on the specific ground, but on such grounds which were not available. It was illegally said that erection/re-erection of building on the land held on lease could be termed as breach of the conditions of the original lease. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel that neither the sub lease was required to be granted by the petitioners nor could it be said that the said sub lease is refused to be sanctioned by the Government. Similarly, it is pointed out that NOC as was granted under the provisions of old Act was misconstrued and was treated to be one in violation of the Cantonment Act, 2006. The instructions issued after the grant of NOC were not to be made applicable with retrospective effect and no such condition could have been imposed on the petitioners. Lastly, it is submitted that the building plan submitted by the petitioners cannot be said to be violative of any of the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 2006, as the application or the plan was submitted much before coming into force of the said Act. It is further contended that at any rate neither the provisions of Cantonment Act, 2006 were applicable nor could the provisions of Public Premises Eviction Act, 1971 be made applicable in the present claim made by the petitioners. This being so, it is contended that rejection of the claim of the petitioners was not on any justified reason but was made on imaginary ground. It is further contended that when an appeal in detail was filed against such action of respondents, appellate authority instead of deciding the appeal in appropriate manner dismissed the same on imaginary grounds. Thus it is contended that the entire action taken by the respondents is bad in law and impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and minutely perused the record.

9. First of all this Court is required to examine whether any law is made with respect to the land situated within the cantonment area in terms of the provisions of 1924 Act. The entire Act nowhere prescribes any procedure to be followed in the matter of grant of lease of land situated within the cantonment area. The Act is silent on the said question. However, 1924 Act prescribes grant of sanction to erect or re- erect the building on any land in a cantonment with the previous sanction of the Board. The Act applies to the cantonment area as notified by the Central Government. It is the authority of the Government under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the 1924 Act to issue a notification defining limits of any cantonment. A land not exclusively in the civil area of a cantonment, would still be within the limits of the cantonment if it falls within the limits notified by the Central Government in the Gazette. Therefore, provisions for grant of sanction to erect a building would be squarely applicable to any such building which is erected or re-erected within the cantonment area. Chapter-XI of the 1924 Act deals with such control and power over the buildings, street and boundaries etc. by the Board. Section 178-A, 179, 180 and 181 of the 1924 Act are relevant for the purposes of consideration of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, therefore, the same are reproduced for the convenience :

"178A.Sanction for building. -No person shall erect or re-erect a building on any land in a cantonment except with the previous sanction of the Board, nor otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and of the rules and bye-laws made under this Act relating to the erection and re-erection of buildings.

179. Notice of new buildings. - (1) Whoever intends to erect or re-erect any buildings in a cantonment shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Board.