S N AWASTHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claiming to be beneficiaries of sanction or building as per resolution, of the respondent Cantonment Board dated 30-3-1990 (Document No. 1), feel aggrieved by suspension thereof by order dated 22-6-1991 (Annexure- R/9) and subsequent revocation thereof by resolution dated 5-7-1991 (Annexure-P/22A) and have approached this Court, challenging legal validity thereof by filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Admittedly, the sanction relates to portion of the Plot No. 95/9-A and No. 95-1 of Bungalow No. 4, 3rd Bridge Road, Cantonment, Jabalpur, originally held by one Narmada Prasad Indurakhya. The said Narmada Pd. Indurakhya had sold the disputed plots to R. P. Shukla, who having purchased the same, got the building plan prepared and submitted the same to the respondent Cantonment Board for approval under S. 181 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It appears that there has been an earlier litigation between the said Narmada Prasad Indurakhya and the Commandant Station Head Quarters, M.E.O., Jabalpur and others and the matter eventually went up to the Supreme Court. The matter had also come to this Court in Second Appeal No. 418/ 83 and was decided in favour of the said Shri Indurakhya on 23-6-1984. The decision of this Court was eventually challenged in the Supreme Court, but the challenge failed (see SLP No. 11304-5/84 decided on 23-7-1990). As a result of this litigation, it was held that the said Indurakhya was the owner of the land and the defendants including the respondent Union of India had - no right to enter into the said property. On the aforesaid finding, a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the ownership right of Shri Indurakhya had been granted. Though the respondents do not dispute about the said litigation and results thereof, they dispute that the aforesaid litigation declares Shri Indurakhya as owner of the propery. They, however, admit that a permanent injunction exists against them, restraining them from interfering with the occupation of the said Indurakhya over the land in dispute.

(3.) As noticed earlier, Shri R. P. Shukla had applied for sanction of the respondent Cantonment Board under Section 181 of the Act, by submitting 3 sanctioned maps. The petitioners claim to have become the owner of the plots having obtained the title either directly from Shri R. P. Shukla or from the person claiming title through him. The details of these transactions are given in para 9 of the petition. It is claimed that Shri R. P. Shukla has transferred not only the land, but all his rights over the land including right to construct thereupon, as per building plan sanctioned by the respondent Board. Sale-deeds (Documents 4, 5 and 6) do contain the history and also the fact that the vendor transfers all rights, interest and title over the land in question, without any reservation. The petitioners, therefore, claim to have become entitled to the rights of Shri R. P. Shukla and said Shri Indurakhya over the lands in question. They also claim the right to construct over the said land based on the sanction of the respondent Board, vide resolution dated 30-3-1990 accorded in favour of Shri R. P. Shukla. The petitioners, by their letters dated 25-5-1990 (Document No. 7), 16-7-1990 (Document No. 8) and 11-6-1990 (Documents 9 and 10), claim to have informed the respondent Board of the transfer and consequent acqusition of their right over the land in question. The respondent Board has in its return not denied receiving intimation of the transfer, though it has stated that right to construct, as per sanctioned plan, could not be transferred and, therefore, sanction in favour of Shri R. P. Shukla could not lawfully be transferred. Since to information, pursuance to these intimations, was received by the petitioners, they claim to have started construction and completed almost about 70% thereof.