KHUSLATA TIWARI Vs. DIRECTOR, DEFENCE ESTATES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The matter relates to unauthorised construction in servant quarter of a bungalow (No.51) belonging to respondent No.3 Lucknow Diocesan Trust Association, Allahabad (LDTA) situate in Varanasi Cantt. According to the petitioner her father being ex-army man was leased an outhouse of the Bungalow by LDTA. Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board issued notice to the father of the petitioner on 26.04.1991 copy of which is Annexure-I to the writ petition and to the property manager of Bungalow No.51, Varanasi Cantt. It was alleged in the notice that two rooms of 12 feet by 21 feet 9 inch and 18 feet by 7 feet 4 inches with brick walls and A.C. sheet roof towards north of outhouse situate in south west side of the Bungalow had been constructed. Noticee was required to show cause as to why action under Section 184 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 should not be taken against him. Father of the petitioner filed reply, copy of which is Annexure-II to the writ petition stating that the constructions were quite old and he had not made constructions and that LDTA was adopting different measures to evict him. Thereafter, on 27.05.1991 order of demolition of the above two rooms was passed copy of which is Annexure-III to the writ petition. Against the said order father of the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed on 17.05.2000 (Annexure-V to the writ petition). Consequent notice was issued on 26.06.2000.

(3.) Before the appellate authority father of the petitioner had requested for compounding (composition) of the construction. Through this writ petition, orders passed by the first authority and by the appellate authority have been challenged. Father of the petitioner Masih Charan died during pendency of appeal and was substituted by the petitioner. Appeal was heard and decided by Director Defence Estates. In the appeal LDTA is described as holder of occupancy rights (HOR) and Masih Charan as sub-tenant of LDTA. The appellate court has noted the arguments of LDTA to the effect that Masih Charan had been asked to vacate the premises and he had carried large construction without permission of HOR (LDTA). In Para-5 of the judgment under the heading ''Analysis of Evidence' reasons for rejecting the appeal have been given. The said para is quoted below: