T PARATHASARATHY Vs. MADHU SANGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants, who are officers of the Cantonment Boad, Jabalpur, (hereinafter referred to as the Board) a statutory authority constituted under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), feel aggrieved by issue of process against them by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jabalpur by Order dated 2-6-1989 passed in Criminal Case No. 2887/89 and pray for quashing those proceedings by filing this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C.

(2.) This order shall also govern disposal of Misc. Cr., Case No. 2334/ 89 wherein a similar process has been issued by the same learned Magistrate by his order dated 16-6-1989, in Criminal Case No. 2963/89. The non-applicant, in these cases, are husband and wife and the dispute between the parties is about house No. 8, Theatre Road, Cantonment, Jabalpur, which is admittedly owned by Shri R. P. Sangal, the non-applicant in the other case and the husband of the non-applicant in this case.

(3.) It appears that Shri Sangal wanted to construct a shopping complex in the compound of aforesaid bungalow and hence applied for sanction of the Board under Section 179 of the Act on 22-12-1986 and submitted map and other details of the new construction as required by law. The said non-applicant did not receive any sanction from the applicants and, therefore, sent reminders on 12-2-1987 and 11-3-1987. The Board, however, informed him on 26-3-1987 that the matter has been referred to the Defence Estate Officer for his report. The Defence Estate Officer informed the Board on 28-3-1987 about his objection to the proposed construction under Section 181(4)(a) of the Act. The said non-applicant addressed a letter dated 30/03/1987 to the Board that since no order was passed on his application for sanction, there was "deemed sanction" under Section 181(6) of the Act and, therefore, he has started constructing the complex. The Board wrote back on 1-4-1987 that there could be no deemed sanction, since the period of 30 days has to be counted from the date of the report of the Defence Estate Officer and not from the date of reminders sent by the said non-applicant. The Board, thereafter filed a civil suit on 16-4-1987 for declaration and injunction against the said non-applicant and prayed for a temporary injunction to stop the construction in progress. Application for temporary injunction was unfortunately rejected by the trial Court on 2-5-1987 but the appellate Court granted the temporary injunction prayed for on 28-7-1987. The said non-applicant filed, thereafter, a writ petition in this Court against the Board, which was dismisses on 30/10/1987. This Court, however, directed the Board to furnish security for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) to compensate the said non-applicant for the loss that may be caused to him on account of temporary injunction. Thereafter, on 4-4-1988, the Board issued a notice under Section 256 of the Act, requiring the said non-applicant to demolish the unauthorised construction. The legal validity of this notice was challenged by the said non-applicant by filing a writ petition in this Court which was the subject-matter of Misc. Petition No. 1171/88. This Court, by its order dated 12-10-1988, held that since a Civil Suit has also been filed by the Board and temporary injunction granted, no interference was called for. This Court, however, recorded the undertaking given by the Board that they will not take further action in pursuance of the notice under Section 256 of the Act, pending trial of the civil suit. In the meantime, the plaint filed by the Board was returned to them on 1-11-1988 for presentation before the proper Court. The returned plaint was presented before the Vth Additional District Judge, on 3-11-1988, who granted ex parte injunction in their favour on 4-11-1988. It appears that the non-applicant felt that return of the plaint meant automatic vacation of the temporary injunction, he started construction again. The Board demolished the construction on 5-11-1988. Since it was found that the said non-applicant had constructed subsequently, the Board demolished the construction again on 11-11-1988.