SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD, ANDHRA CIRCLE,-SECUNDERABAD REP. BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER versus MOHAMMED MOHIUDDIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 395 · Decided: 28-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD, ANDHRA 
A 
CIRCLE,-SECUNDERABAD REP. BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
v. 
MOHAMMED MOHIUDDIN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 28, 2003 
B 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Cantonments Act, 1924-Sections 181 (3) & 181 (4)(b)-Scope of-
Held, under Section 181 (3) before sanctioning a plan the Board is 
required to refer the application for sanction of plan to the Defence Estate C 
Officer for ascertaining whether there is any objection on the part of the 
Government to erection or re-erection over the land in question-Under 
Section 181 (4) (b), that the Competent Authority dealing with the matter 
has to see whether there is or not any dispute about land between the 
person applying for sanction of the plan and the Government. 
D 
Sections 181(3) & 181 (4)(b)-Application submited to Cantonment 
Board for sanction of a plan-Returned to the ground of non-fulfillment 
of requirement of filing exemption certificate under the provisions of Urban 
Land Ceiling Act-Nothing to show that a reference was made to the 
Defence Estate Ojicer before returning the application earlier-Held, the E 
Defence Estate Officer would neither be denuded of his statutory respon-
sibility to raise objection about Government's claim to the land or dispute 
about it nor the competent authority was absolved of his statutory duty to 
refer the matter to the Defence Estate Officer-In such circumstances 
principles of restrictive res judicata not available to the applicants- F 
Constructive res judicata-Civi/ Procedure Code-Section 10. 
Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937-Rules 3 & 10-
Maintenance of General Land Register-Defence Estates Officer is re-
quired to maintain General Land Register in respect of all land, which has 
been entrusted to, or vests in the Board. 
G 
Civil Procedure Code-Sect. 79 and Order 2 7 Rule 3-Suit by or 
against the Government-Whether Union of India is to be imp/eaded as 
a party and not the authority or any officer-The Cantonment Board 
through one of its designated officers considers the application for sanction H 
395 
396 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of plan-It shall have its right to defend its orders-Under the statut01y 
provisions, the plan is not to be sanctioned in case there is a dispute 
between the applicant and the Government-Under the statute again the 
mater is to be referred to the Defence Estate Officer to ascertain this fact 
and it is for him if any such dispute exists between the applicant and the 
B Government of India-Therefore, it cannot be said there would be no 
reason for these authorities to contest the matter-The interest of the 
Government of India is ve1y much involved and it will have all the interest 
to see that the plan is not sanctioned in case it has a claim over the land. 
The land over which the Respondents proposed to raise construc-
C tion fell in the limits of the Appellant Cantonment Board. The 
Appellant Board had been collecting tax in respect of the land, which 
had been in possession of the Respondents. The Respondents had 
submitted plans to the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board for 
sanction of the plan, which was returned with an objection that the 
D Respondents were required to furnish exemption certificate under the 
provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The 
Respondents challenged the return of the layout plait by filing a writ 
petition before the High Court, which was allowed and it was held that 
no exemption certificate was required under the Act. However, lay out 
E plan was again returned on the ground that the land in question was 
in Sarkari Abadi Land. So another writ petition was filed by the 
Respondents and the same was also allowed with a direction to the 
authotities to find out as to whether the Respondents had established 
a prima facie case as to their possession and also to consider the 
objection of the Union and to pass an appropriate order thereof. The 
F application for sanction of plan was dismissed as the land was found 
to have been in possession of the Government of India. Respondents 
filed appeal against order refusing permission for sanction of land. 
During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent filed another writ 
petition to restrain the authorities from interfering with the possession 
G of the Respondents till disposal of their appeal. The appeal filed by the 
Respondents was also dismissed holding that the Respondents had no 
title to the land in question. Respondent t

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