RAJESH AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 25th February 2009 passed by the Central Government in exercise of its power to review under Section 57 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 ('Act') whereby the decision dated 4th January 2008 of the Cantonment Board ('Board') sanctioning the plans submitted by the Petitioner in respect of the Bungalow No. 167, Chappel Street, Meerut Cantonment (hereinafter 'the property') was set aside.

(2.) The Petitioner inherited the property in question which belonged originally to his grandfather. In 1932 the Petitioner's grandfather had constructed a cinema hall and shops in the property after obtaining sanction from the Cantonment authorities. The cinema hall, known as Palace Cinema, underwent additions and alterations from time to time. It is claimed that the usage of the property was always commercial. Resolutions dated 15th January 1952 and 14th June 1997 of the Board recorded that the Petitioner's grandfather had made applications for permission to carry out additions and alterations to the property. Inter alia it was recorded that the property which was held on "old grant terms" was located "within the bazaar area." This assumes significance because it is now sought to be contended by the Respondents that the area in question was always residential and, therefore, no cinema hall can be constructed thereon.

(3.) The Petitioner submitted a building application with a notice under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 on 15th February 2003 to the Board proposing the demolition of the 70-year old structure and erecting new structures in its place. The building plans were returned to the Petitioner by the Chief Executive Officer ('CEO') of the Board (Respondent No.5 herein) asking him to get the mutation done in his favour before submitting the plan. The Petitioner on 22nd February 2006 applied for correction of the entries in the general land register ('GLR') to show the property as commercial i.e. shops and cinemas instead of bungalows as the property had in fact been used for a commercial purpose for over 70 years.