RAJENDRA PRASAD MANGAL Vs. THE CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.6.1987 (Annexure P -19) of respondent No. 3 General Officer, Commanding -in -chief.

(2.) THE petitioner is transferee of the original lessees of bungalow No. 8, Theatre Road, Cantonment, Jabalpur. The land appertenant to this bungalow is 2.20 acres. The lease deed dated 5.3.1922 (Annexure P -1) was executed by the Secretary of State. This land was in "B -3 category on resumable tenure". Clause xii of the lease -deed provides that the house shall not be occupied for the purpose of a hospital, bank, hotel, shop or school without the previous written sanction of the officer Commanding the Division given with the concurrence of the Local Government. On the considerations for the grant of sanction is whether the site would be required in future for the "extension of cantonment" or "for the accommodation of military officers or civil officers". Clause XXVII of the lease -deed further provides that the Local Government may resume the land or any portion thereof at any time after giving one month's notice in writing and on payment of compensation for such building standing on the land or portion thereof as shall have been erected under proper authority.

(3.) BY the judgment and decree dated 6.5.1982 in civil suit No. 26 -A of 1989 instituted by the Cantonment Board against the petitioner the district Judge. Jabalpur held that there was no "deemed sanction" and the Board is entitled to demolish the construction illegally made by the petitioner. This judgment though set -aside in first appeal was restored by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 7 of 1994 on 18.4.1995 closing the chapter of deemed sanction. There was Special Leave Petition by the petitioner before the Supreme Court and in pursuance of the directions given therein the Cantonment Board sent a copy of letter dated 25.4.1987 rejecting the building plan to the petitioner. Subsequently the Supreme Court directed the petitioner by order dated 15.12.1995 to "adopt such remedy as may be open to him" in view of the impugned order dated 27.6.1987.