LexCANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT versus NARAINDAS & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.\' ~' " . CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT v. NARAINDAS & ANR. _ ,4pril 9, 1969 A [S. M. S!KRI, R. S: BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] B ·- \ ! -- . - Cantonments Act (2 of 1924), ss. 185 ·and 181-Kiosk Ol'er drain · belonging to Cantonment Board-Direction for removal eighteen years .after its construction-Competency of the Board. ·-------· Section 185 of the C~ntoi:tments Act, 1924, deals with the erecticn , o'r re-erection of buildings on private lands and the Cantonment Board is given the power to direct the alteration or demolition of such a build·_ C ing within . twelve months of the completion of erection or re-erectiori. Section 187 deals with constructions, which are projections or structures, encioaching on .ally street9 drain9 sewer or aqueduct. The Cantonn1eot Board has the right to direct the demolition of such~-structures under :s. 187, within the period of limitation for suits for possession""' of public streets or roads, that is, within ___ 3Q years from th~ date of en~oachmcnr. , J ' . _ In the present case, the o\.\'·ner of a shop constructed a stone projec- D ·' _ tion over the drain belonging to the Cantonment Board, after obtaining - permission of the Cantonment Board, to facilitate approach to his shop. But, without obtaining the pe'rmission of the Cantonment Board,.. he _put up a kiosk on the stone projection, which thus encroached upon the _ .drain belonging to the Cantonment Board. The Board; eighteen yea:-s ) after the construction,_directed the removal of the kiosk'under s. 187. / On the questi~n whether s. 185 or s. 187 applied. HELD ' The act complained of fell within the scope of s. 187, 'because, the permission given by the Board to -put up the stone projection did not confe'r on the owner- of the shop any proprietary -right over the drain but merely -gave him a licence~ As the action of the Board \VJ.3 within 30 years from the date of encroachment. the Board was compete!lt · to get the kiosk removed. [242 A; 243 A-B,-E-F] [\Vhether the Board could take action even after the period of- limita- tion of 30 years, left open]. [243 E] . . . · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal- No. 747 of 1966 .. E F ·Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated G February 2, 1~65 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2097 of 1958. · · · by C. B. Agarwala and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. P. N. Bhardwaj, for respondent No. 2. __ The Judgment ·of the Court was delivered by H Hegde J., The only question arising for decision in this appeal special Leave is whether the notices iinpugned in these pro- A 13 c D E F G H CANTONMENT BOARD v. NARAINDAS (Hegde, J.) 241 ceedings are governed bys. 185(1) ors. 187(1) of the Canton- ments Act, 1924. The trial court held that s. 185 (1) is the aoveming provision. The first appellate court differed from it ~nd held that s. 187 ( l) governs. The High Court in second appe:1l has restored the decision of the trial court. The respondent is the owner of shop No. 344 in Mohalla Bakri, La!-Kurti Bazar, Meerut Cantt. The shop in question was constructed about 20 years before the institution of the suit from which this appeal arises. At about the time of the construc- tiOll of that shop permission was obtained from the Cantonment Board to put up a stone projection over the drain by the side of the road in front of the shop to facilitate ingress into the shop and egress therefrom. The first appellate court has found and that finding has been accepted by the High Court that about 18 year<: prior to the institution of the suit, the owner of the shop put up a woockn kiosk over the stone projection and the same is being used as a pan shop. According to the finding of those couns the kiosk in question was put up without obtaining the permission of the Cantonment Board. On November 9, 1953, the Cantonment Board issued a notice to the occupier of shop No. 344 under s. 187, requiring him to demolish and remove the kiosk within 7 days from the receipt of that notice. As that demand was not complied with, a final notice under s. 187 was 11-iven to him on December 8, 1953. Thereafter the owner of the shop instituted the suit from which this appeal has arisen seek- in~. a perpetual injunction restraining the Cantonment Board from getting the kiosk removed. As mentioned earlier, the trial court decreed the suit holding that as the kiosk had been put up 1S years prio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.