CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT & ANR. versus AFZAL

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 275 · Decided: 23-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT & ANR.
v.
AFZAL
(Civil Appeal No. 3814 of 2019)
APRIL 23, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Cantonments Act, 1924: ss. 184 and 185 – Illegal erection or
re-erection – Allegation that respondents carried out unauthorized
constructions without prior permission within the area of cantonment
– Issuance of notices by Cantonment Executive Officer u/ss. 184
and 185 to respondents for stopping the unauthorized constructions
raised by them as well as for demolition of constructions so raised
– Writ petitions by respondents seeking quashing of the notices as
also order passed by the appellate authority – High Court quashed
the notices – On appeal, held: Valid and cogent reasons recorded
by the High Court for quashing the notices issued u/s. 185 and
orders by the appellate authority – Notices were issued mechanically
and in a casual manner – Having issued the show cause notice, the
primary authority ought to have referred to such notice and
objections, while issuing the final notice but the same was not done
– Survey/inspection report to the effect that the respondent raised
unauthorised constructions in the area not furnished to the
respondents at any point of time though such report was relied on
for rejecting the appeals preferred by the respondents – Having
regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order passed by the
High Court, no error in the order passed by the High Court so as to
interfere with the same – Appellants at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings by issuing fresh show cause notices on the allegations
made against the respondents – Cantonments Act, 2006.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction questioned by the respondents
and the authority of the appellants in issuing notice under Section
185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, is rejected by the High Court.
Similarly further plea of not taking action within a period of 12
months from the date of construction is also rejected by recording
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 275
275
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
276
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
reasons. There is no error on such findings recorded by the High
Court, more particularly in absence of any appeals preferred by
the respondents-original petitioners. At the same time, valid and
cogent reasons are recorded by the High Court for quashing the
notices issued under Section 185 of the 1924 Act and orders by
the appellate authority. Apart from the reasons assigned in the
impugned order the other material placed on record have been
verified. So far as the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3814 of
2019 is concerned, show cause notice dated 22.08.2006 is issued
alleging that he carried out unauthorised construction but same
is not even referred to in the final notice issued on 02.09.2006. It
is the case of the respondents that objections were filed, and
their objections were also not considered. Having issued the show
cause notice, the primary authority ought to have referred to such
notice and objections, if any, to such notice, while issuing the
final notice. It is clear that notices are issued mechanically and in
a casual manner. Even the appellate authority, relying on the
survey report has held that the respondent in the aforesaid has
raised unauthorised constructions on the first floor of the shop
without taking any permission of the competent authority. Further,
it is stated that such survey/inspection report is not furnished to
the respondents at any point of time though such report is relied
on for rejecting the appeals preferred by the respondents.
[Para 11][280-G-H; 281-A-D]
1.2 While quashing the notices in the impugned order in
the writ petitions filed before the High Court, the High Court
left it open to the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings by
issuing fresh show cause notices on the allegations made against
the respondents, but at the same time having regard to reasons
recorded in the impugned order passed by the High Court, there
is no error in the order passed by the High Court so as to interfere
with the same. As the Cantonment Act, 2006 has come into force
from 18.12.2006, appellants to take fresh action only in accordance
with the provisions of the 2006 Act. [Paras 12, 13][281-E-H]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3814
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  19.12.2013 of the  High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Civil No. 54929 of 2012.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
277
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3815. 3816, 3817, 3818, 3819. 38

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.