RAM NARAIN Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are the joint owners of free-hold land comprised in Khasra No. 1066, Survey No. CB 34 (Old) situate in village Naraina through this writ petition seek a declaration that the sanction applied for by them in their notice dated 29th June, 1970 (Annexure No. I), under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act') served on the Executive Officer of respondent No. 1 intimating the intention of the petitioners to erect cinema house on the land in question, is deemed to have been unconditionally granted under Section 181 of the Act and that resolution No. 32, dated the 7th October, 1970, Annexure 5, passed by respondent No. 1 is illegal, unauthorised and without jurisdiction. A further declaration is sought that respondent No. 1 is legally obliged to consider the application dated the 12th August, 1971, Annexure No. 6, seeking extension of time for construction of the cinema house as the statutory sanction for construction of the building was deemed to have been accorded to the petitioners under Section 181 (6) of the Act which was valid for a period of one year which period expired on 16th August, 1971, as respondent No. 1 had neglected and omitted to consider the said application, Annexure No. 6.

(2.) The petitioners further pray that an order, direction or writ in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing resolution No. 32, dated 7th October, 1970, be issued and a further order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to consider in accordance with law petitioners' application dated 12th August, 1971, for extension of period of time, is also sought to be issued.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that they applied to respondent No. 1 on 29th June, 1970, by giving a valid notice in writing as envisaged under Section 180 of the Act, Annexure No. 1, seeking sanction for construction of a cinema house on their plot, referred to earlier; that respondent No. 1 received the said notice in its office on the same date i.e., the 29th June, 1970; that respondent No. 1 was obliged to consider the aforesaid notice within one month after its receipt and if the Board neglected or omitted to consider the notice within one month after its receipt, the plan submitted was deemed to have been sanctioned under the provisions of Section 181 of the Act as the petitioners after serving the notice dated 29th June, 1970, sent by registered post to respondent No. 1, sent another notice dated 30th July, 1970, Annexure No. 9, which was duly received in the office of respondent No. 1 on 31st July, 1970, copy of the postal acknowledgement being annexure No. 3, calling attention of the Board to the neglect and omission and that despite the receipt of that notice, the neglect and omission to make and deliver to the petitioners order under Section 181 of the Act, continued for a further period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice dated the 31st July, 1970. It is accordingly averred by the petitioners that the consequence of the neglect and omission by respondent No. 1 to make and deliver to the petitioners any order on the notice is that respondent No. 1 was deemed to have unconditionally given sanction to the erection of the cinema building applied for by the petitioners by notice in writing, Annexure No. 1.