CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. JEENATH BEGUM HABIBUR RAHMAN SHEIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Cantonment Board by its Executive Officer is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit is for injunction restraining the defendant not tu execute the order of demolition as stated in the notice dated 30-12-1986. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, but came to be decreed by the Appellate Court and hence the second appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows : the plaintiff Smt. Jeenatbegum Habibur Rahiman Shaikh filed the suit against the defendant restraining from executing the order of demolition of suit House No. 7, High Street, Belgaum, as per the notice dated 30-12-1986. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit house stands in her name as a registered owner in the assessment register. The plaintiff is paying house tax, sanitary tax etc. ,

(3.) THE defendant started alleging that the plaintiff unauthorisedly constructed the building without valid sanction of the Cantonment board and directed to demolish the unauthorised construction and to stop further construction under its notice dated 31-8-1984 and 20-3-1985. The plaintiff has given a reply on 30-9-1985 to both the notices and submitted that she has not constructed any unauthorised construction. Defendant without considering the reply issued another notice dated 24-11-1986 giving the plaintiff an opportunity of personal hearing. Though the plaintiff gave details of construction as per the licence, defendant proceeded to issue demolition notice under Section 256 of the cantonments Act, dated 30-12-1986. The alleged unauthorised construction stated in the notice is not at all carried out or constructed. The contents of the said notice are false and baseless. The defendant presumed that the plaintiff has put up new construction unauthorisedly. But in fact no such construction has been put up as alleged. The building was existing being constructed as per the approved plan dated 24-12-1983. So the defendant cannot allege that the construction is unauthorised and liable to be demolished. If the defendant is allowed to execute the order as per the notice dated 30-12-1986 the plaintiff will be put into irreparable loss. The notice issued by the defendant is illegal and improper. The cause of action arose on 30-12-1986 when the defendant issued final notice directing the plaintiff to demolish the construction. Hence, this suit.