CANTONMENT BOARD DELHI Vs. MANGEY RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law raised in this second appeal is whether the Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt. Delhi has power or jurisdiction to revise or reopen the plans already sanclioned.

(2.) Shri Mangey Ram, respondent filed a suit for injunction to restrain the Cantonment Board, Delhi Cantt. permanently by injunction from reconsidering the building plan'- already sanctioned by the Cantonment Board in favour of the plaintiff ;n respect of property premises No. 47/1, 47/2, 48/1 and 48/2. Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The Cantonment Board passed a resolution No. 21 dated December 4, 1968 granting sanction and approval of the building plan and the sanctioned plan along with a copy of the said resolution was given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was served with a notice dated April 9, 1969 by the Cantonment Board alleging that the building plans have been submitted for an area measuring 62'-4" x 30'-6" while the area leased out under the original lease-deed in 60'-6" x 28' and that the plans were again being referred to the Cantonment Board for reconsideration. The plaintiff was given notice that no construction was to be carried out till the case was decided by the Cantonment Board and that in case, any construction was done, it would be at the risk and costs. of the plaintiff. This notice was challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that there is no jurisdiction in the Cantonment Board to revise or reconsider the sanction and that no opportunity had been given to the plaintiff to substantiate his case. Objections were also raised by the Cantonment Board that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Cantonment Act. 1924 and the suit is bad for want of the statutory notice under Section 273 of the said Act. The issues frame in the suit were held in the favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The first appl was dismilled by the learned Addl. District Judge, Delhi.

(3.) The main submissn of the counsel for the appellant is that the power of the Cantonment Board to issue orders of sanction of building plans by virtue of the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 include within its ambit power excrcisable in a like manner to add to, amend, vary or rescind an order so issued. Reliance is placed in that regard on the provisions of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Reference is also made to Sections 181 and 185(2) of the said Act to contend that there is power to stop erection or re-erection or even to demolish a building which has been constructed and completed in pursuance of the sanction granted by the Cantonment Board. In this case it is contended that the case was only being submilted for reconsideration of the Cantonment Board because it was found that the area leased out to the plaintiff was different than what was shown in the building plans and in the meantime, the plaintiff was asked not to carry out the construction till the matter is decided by the Cantonment Board. It is urged at the Bar that as and when any action prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff will be taken, the plaintiff would be given an opportunity of being heard before the proposed action. Arguments have also been addressed on a question that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the provisions of Cantonment Act, 1924 and that the suit is bad for want of statutory notice under Section 273 of the said Act.