CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. SANJAY NARANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal, preferred under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.09.2012, passed by District Judge, Dehradun, in Civil Appeal No. 57 of 2012, whereby said court has allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.05.2012, passed by the trial court [Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Dehradun].

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.

(3.) THE defendant No. 1 contested the suit and filed written statement before the trial court. The defendant No. 1 (present appellant) Cantonment Board, Landour Mussoorie, did not deny the grant made in favour of R.L. Duggan in the year 1923, and inheritance of his rights by his widow and thereafter of her grandson. It is also not disputed that Mr. Hawkins (grandson of Mrs. Duggan) transferred his rights to Mr. B.P. Singh in respect of Dahlia Bank Estate. Rest of the contents in the plaint are not admitted by the answering defendant, and it is pleaded that the property in question is within the restricted area notified under section 3 of Works of Defence Act, 1903, and no construction was permissible within fifty meters from the crest of outer parapet of Institute of Technology Management (for short ITM) which is part of Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO). It is further pleaded by the defendant No. 1 that since ITM did not give No Objection Certificate, as such the plan submitted by the defendant was duly rejected. It is also pleaded by the Cantonment Board, Landour Mussoorie, that it did not receive No Objection Certificate from Defence Estate Officer, Meerut Circle, as such the plaintiff cannot assume deemed sanction under Sub -section (6) of section 238 of Cantonments Act, 2006. In the additional pleas it is also stated that plaintiff is not recorded occupancy right holder in the General Land Register (GLR), as such he is not entitled to the relief claimed by him. By way of amendment it is also pleaded in para 21 (a) (b) (c) that during the pendency of suit against the rejection order dated 06.07.2011, in respect of plan submitted by the plaintiff, he (plaintiff) filed an appeal before General Officer Commanding, Central Command, and said appellate authority has also dismissed the appeal vide order dated 15.02.2012. It is also pleaded in the written statement of defendant No. 1 by way of amendment that under SRO No. 106 dated 30.08.2005 issued by the Government of India and the land adjoining ITM was notified (before the plan was submitted) under section 3 of Works Defence Act, 1903.