RAJKUMAR ADLAKHA Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD LANDOUR & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged before this Court notices dated 25.11.2010, 14.02.2011, 30.03.2012 and 07.05.2012 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board Landour, Mussoorie (from hereinafter referred to as "Board"). The first two orders/notices were served to the petitioner under Sections 247 and 248 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 seeking reasons as to why the petitioner is raising construction on the property which is under the jurisdiction of the Board and since no satisfactory reply was given, subsequent notices were also issued under Section 320 of the Cantonment Act for demolition of the alleged illegal construction.

(2.) The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the notices are bad inasmuch as the disputed construction on the land is admittedly to be in a place, which is under the defence establishment and governed by the Cantonment Board Landour. According to the petitioner, the said property was given to him as a gift as far back as in the year 1994. The petitioner relies upon the reply (annexure 4 to the writ petition) to the reports dated 25.11.2010 and 14.03.2011, which show that the Chief Executive Officer and another authority had surveyed the property, which shows that the property is in dilapidated condition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner would be that admittedly there was already a construction on the property, but what has been done by the petitioner is actually repair work and not a new construction as is being alleged. The learned counsel for the respondent/Board would refute this argument and would submit that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that what the petitioner has done is a new construction which is a huge building on the property, which is not permissible under the law. Even if it is a case of reconstruction, the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the Board for the purposes as provided under the provision of Cantonments Act, 2006. Learned counsel for the Board has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 144 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, which reads as under:-