SAEED ALI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Petitioners who are 14 in number have filed present writ petition claiming following relief wliich is extracted below: " (i) to issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17. 8. 2001 passed in Appeal No. 43 of 2000 by the Respondent No. 3 (ii) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 2. 8. 2008 issued by Respondent No. 2 (Annexure 3) (iii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, restraining the respondent No. 2 from demolishing the shops of the petitioners tocated within the premises of Bunglow No. 81 Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. Meerut. (iv) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (v) Award costs of this petition to the petitioner. "

(2.) BRIEF background of the case as disclosed by the petitioners are that each one of the petitioners is having individual shop within the premises of Bunglow No. 81 Hill Street, Meerut Cant. Meerut. Said Bunglow No. 81 Hill Street, Meerut Cantt Meerut was purchased by late Jamuna Swaroop by way of sale deed dated 28. 2. 1936 and ultimately its' possession by way of succession passed on to J. S. Gupta grandson. Initially name of Jamuna Swaroop was mutated and on his death name of Damodar Swaroop was mutated and thereafter name of J. S. Gupta was mutated in the record of Cantonment Board. Said property is within the limit of Meerut Cantonment Board and has been recorded as B-3 Old Grant Property in the record of the Cantonment Board. Petitioners claim that shops in question were let out to them by J. S. Gupta owner of Bunglow No. 81 Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. Meerut and tenancy in question was by way of registered agreement. Tenancy in question continued and rent was being continuously paid by the petitioners. Petitioners claim that agreement of similar nature as has been appended alongwith the Annexure-1 was entered in respect of each one of the petitioners. Petitioners in the writ petition have contended that they have raised temporary constructions in nature of tin shed standing on the iron pipe bolted to the ground without there being any foundation etc. The said structures were temporary in nature and no permission of any kind was required for the same. Petitioners have contended that on 2. 8. 2008 they received notice from Chief Executive Officer, Meerut Cantt. Meerut in respect of illegal constructions and petitioners have been asked to vacate premises in question. Petitioners have contended that after receiving notice dated 2. 8. 2008, they acquired knowledge that J. S. Gupta has sold the said Bunglow No. 81 Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. Meerut to one Sarabjeet Singh S/o Sri Amarjeet Singh in the year 2007 itself and on further verification they have acquired knowledge that notice was issued on 24. 4. 1996 to J. S. Gupta by Ex-ecutive Officer, Cantonment Board for demolition of the shops constructed within the compound of the premises of Bunglow No. 81 Hill Street, Meerut Cantt. Meerut and against said notice Appeal under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 being Appeal No. 43 of 2000 was filed before Director Defence Estate, Central Command Lucknow by J. S. Gupta and said appeal was dismissed on 17. 8. 2000. Petitioners have tried to contend and show that entire proceedings qua them are exparte and principle of natural justice has been violated and in this background demolition proceedings which has been soughtto be undertaken are unjustifiable proceedings.

(3.) SRI Mohd. Is a Khan, Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 countering said submission contended that in the present case admittedly constructions in question have been raised without taking any prior permission or sanction from the Cantonment Board, Meerut and owner in puestion was issued notice and validity of said notice was questioned by him by preferring Appeal and said Appeal was dismissed by reasoned order and once owner in question has acquiesced to this fact that constructions in question were illegal construction raised without there being any prior permission or sanction and petitioners who are claiming themselves to be the occupier are duty bound to cooperate in getting earlier order executed as such in the facts of the present case no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioners and writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is liable to be dismissed.