AMAR SINGH KWATRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the alleged action of the Indian Army in closing/obstructing the alleged road which is adjoining to the defence land and the land belonging to the petitioners. Contention of the petitioners is that they have purchased land vide registered sale-deeds dated 8.5.2007 and 14.2.2008 bearing Survey No. 864 admeasuring 0.715 hectares and 0,143 hectares respectively in village Telikhedi, Mhow, District Indore. The adjoining land belongs to the Indian Army (Army Golf Club) situated in GLR Survey No. 168. It has been further stated that the Army Authorities in the year 1983 in order to utilise the land in question have entered into a lease agreement with the predecessor in title and a small culvert was also constructed to provide free access for the golfers on the land in question across river Gambhir. The lease deed was later on extended in the year 1998. In the month of April, 2008 the petitioners after purchasing the land served a notice to the respondents informing about the sale of the land and the Army Authorities (respondent No. 5) vide letter dated 13.8.2008 also paid lease rent to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners made an effort for extension of the lease, however, the lease was not extended and on 16.3.2009 the petitioner No. 1's father requested the Army Authorities to vacate the land. Respondent No. 5 informed the petitioners that they will be vacating the land by the end of 2009. Petitioners have further stated that the Army Authorities started threatening the petitioners by blocking the access of the petitioners as well as other family members to their land and the petitioners approached the Revenue Authorities to carry out a field survey regarding alternative route to Survey No. 814. A Panchnama was prepared by the Revenue Authorities which is also on record dt. 29.11.2010 and the Army also vacated the land. On 2.12.2010 the respondent No. 5 has informed the petitioners that the land has been vacated and they are constructing a boundary wall. Contention of the petitioners is that the Army Authorities while constructing a boundary wall are blocking the existing road which is impermissible in law keeping in view section 258 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. The petitioners thereafter served notices to the respondents requesting them to stop construction of the boundary wall and as the Army Authorities continued with the construction of the boundary wall, the present writ petition has been filed. It has also been stated in the present writ petition that certain land belonging to the State Government on the east river bank of river Gambhir has been encroached by the Army Authorities and as the existing road has been blocked the same is violative of section 258 of the Cantonments Act. It has also been stated that the petitioners do not have access to their land and therefore, the action of the Army Authorities deserves to be set aside. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 4 and it has been stated that the land in question which is in dispute was lying vacant and was not being utilised by the predecessor in title. The land was given on rent by the predecessor in title to the Golf Course and the Defence Forces were using the land for playing golf and for conducting other training. It has also been stated that the Government of India has sanctioned Rs. 19.72 crores for construction of key location planning accommodation for infantry batallion and a boundary wall is required to ensure security and safety of defence installations which is as per Works of Defence Act, 1903. It has been further stated that the land on which boundary wall is being constructed is A(1) defence land. It has also been stated that the boundary wall is being constructed with due approval of the Competent Authority, financed by the Ministry of Defence in respect of which the respondents have enclosed administrative approval of the work and the budget allotted. Respondents have further stated that section 258 of the Act of 2006 is applicable to the roads under the cantonment and not to the roads under local military authority, i.e., under Defence A(l) land. It has been further stated that the defence authorities can regulate within unit access/use of own roads located in their area and the respondents have enclosed the relevant rules along with the reply. It has also been stated on affidavit that villagers of Telikheda are using main road, i.e., Telikheda Mhow Road and not the so-called alleged passage which the petitioners are stating to be a road. It has been further stated that no road exist on the east bank of Gambhir river and the portion of land which has been stated as road by the petitioner is nothing but a 'Kacha' track which was used by the Golf players to proceed towards Green Poles and was purely temporarily used by the Golf course at the relevant point of time. It has also been stated that the petitioners have purchased the land only in the year 2007-2008 and, therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to state that they had an age old access to the Army Area. The respondents have further stated that the land in question as it was not required by the Army Authorities and as accommodation for an infantry batallion is being constructed the boundary wall is necessary and they are rightly constructing a wall exclusively on the land belonging to the Ministry of Defence. It has also been stated that the land in question has never been used for agricultural purposes at any point of time and the petitioner has made an attempt to mislead this Court by making incorrect statements. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length as well as Mr. Vivek Sharan, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for the Union of India along with Brigadier Prakash Chandra, Station Commander and perused the record.