LexTHE CANTONMENT BOARD. JABALPLIR AND ORS. versus SRI S.N. AWASTHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE CANTONMENT BOARD. JABALPLIR AND ORS.
A
\',.
SRI S.N. AWASTHI AND ORS.
NOVEMBER 2, 199.1
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .I.I.[
B
la/Jaipur ('antonn1enl Board At! :
S.181 ( 3 )-Permission to cons/met building grallted by the Board-Later
on pennission 1vas cancelled-Since c"ondition 11recedent not sati.\jled viz.
C
sanclion of Defence Eslalcs Officer not obtained-Held : Sanction accorded
earlier was jJer se illegal-Since no vppo1tunity was afforded before cance/la-
tfrJn pa1ty directed to jllc a fresh application and Board to consider the sanie
and pass order.
The appellant-Board had granted permission to the Respondents for D
construction of a building, but later on cancelled the same. Challenging
the cancellation the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court,
which was allo\.l'ed on three grounds, viz. (i) that sanction having been
granted its cancellation llithout giving an opportunity was in violation of
the principles of natural justice; (ii) that the appellants had not specified E
the distinction bet\veen '~lilitary Estates Oflicer' and 'Defence Estates
Otlicer' for the latter to get pcnver to cancel the per1nission; and that since
the respondents had started construction, on principles of ec1uity, tht'
cancellation \\'as not justilied. Hence this appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, lhi~ l:ourt
HELD : 1. The land b situated \\ithin the Cantonment Area. There-
fore, the title in the land stands vested in the Cantonment Board. What a
person in la\l1'ul po.ssession \vould be entitled to enjoy is the lease-hold
rights thereon subject to the conditions mentioned therein. For the erec-
lion or re-erection of a building, a licence from the Cantoruncnt Board is
rec1uired as a pre-condition under the Act. Section 181 of the Jabalpur
Cantonment Board Act in that behalf cover~ tht fitld. Thl· At.:t \\'ii~ ~1111~
St'l(Utntly antt'nded substituting liH· lht: "·ords "l'vlilitary Est all' ( lllicer',
'Defence Estates ()flicer'. Thus, as on ()ctoher 1, 1983 thl:' ton1pt·tt·11t ~1tfictT
F
G
to be consulted as a condition tu grant )Jern1ission by the t'antonn1t:nl
l J
73'J
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
Board for erection or re-erection of building by the Board was the 'Defence
Estates ()tlicer'. Admittecll)', prior·permission was not obtained from him.
It is also on record that G.O.C. in Chief had suspended the Resolution by
proceedings dated June 22, 1991 and he passed the order directing the
Cantonment Board to reconsider the matter and pursuant thereto, the
B
Board had cancelled the sanction. Since the condition precedent of prior
sanction of Defence Estates Officer under sub-section (3) of Section 181
had not been obtained, the sanction for construction of the house granted
by the Cantonment Board was per se illegal. [741-F, 742-B-C]
2. No prior notice, before cancellation by the Board, was given to the
C respondents. In view of the fact that statutory condition has not been
complied, this Court does not like to have the proceedings delayed by
directing the Board to give an opportunity to pass fresh order. The proper
course would be to direct the respondents to make an application afresh
and the same would be considered by the Board according to law and
D would be disposed of. The Board would consider the same within one
month from the date of the application and should make reference within
15 days thereafter to the 'Defonce Estates Ollicer' for appropriate sanc-
tion, who would then take action under Section 181 (3) of the Act within
one month. On return thereof, final order would be passed by the Canton-
inent Board within one month from the date of receipt of the order passed
E
by the Defence Estates Officer. [742-D-E]
3. In case the Board or the Defence Estate Officer would be inclined
to reject the application for sanction, they should give reasons in support
thereof. Along with the application, the respondents would be at liberty to
F
file all their documents in support of their claim for sanction. [742-F)
G
4. Construction made in contravention of law would not be a
premium to extend equity so as to fecilitate violation of mandatory require-
ments of law. The High Court, therefore, was not justified in extending
equity for completion of construction. [742-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10281 of
1995.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.94 of the Madhya Pradesh
H High Court in M.P. No. 2233 of Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.