Cantonments Act, 1924: ss. 184 and 185 – Illegal erection or re-erection – Allegation that respondents carried out unauthorized constructions without prior permission within the area of cantonment – Issuance of notices by Cantonment Executive Officer u/ss. 184 and 185 to respondents for stopping the unauthorized constructions raised by them as well as for demolition of constructions so raised – Writ petitions by respondents seeking quashing of the notices as also order passed by the appellate authority – High Court quashed the notices – On appeal, held: Valid and cogent reasons recorded by the High Court for quashing the notices issued u/s. 185 and orders by the appellate authority – Notices were issued mechanically and in a casual manner – Having issued the show cause notice, the primary authority ought to have referred to such notice and objections, while issuing the final notice but the same was not done – Survey/inspection report to the effect that the respondent raised unauthorised constructions in the area not furnished to the respondents at any point of time though such report was relied on for rejecting the appeals preferred by the respondents – Having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order passed by the High Court, no error in the order passed by the High Court so as to interfere with the same – Appellants at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing fresh show cause notices on the allegations made against the respondents – Cantonments Act, 2006.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The jurisdiction questioned by the respondents and the authority of the appellants in issuing notice under Section
185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, is rejected by the High Court. Similarly further plea of not taking action within a period of 12 months from the date of construction is also rejected by recording reasons. There is no error on such findings recorded by the High Court, more particularly in absence of any appeals preferred by the respondents-original petitioners. At the same time, valid and cogent reasons are recorded by the High Court for quashing the notices issued under Section 185 of the 1924 Act and orders by the appellate authority. Apart from the reasons assigned in the impugned order the other material placed on record have been verified. So far as the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3814 of 2019 is concerned, show cause notice dated 22.08.2006 is issued alleging that he carried out unauthorised construction but same is not even referred to in the final notice issued on 02.09.2006. It is the case of the respondents that objections were filed, and their objections were also not considered. Having issued the show cause notice, the primary authority ought to have referred to such notice and objections, if any, to such notice, while issuing the final notice. It is clear that notices are issued mechanically and in a casual manner. Even the appellate authority, relying on the survey report has held that the respondent in the aforesaid has raised unauthorised constructions on the first floor of the shop without taking any permission of the competent authority. Further, it is stated that such survey/inspection report is not furnished to the respondents at any point of time though such report is relied on for rejecting the appeals preferred by the respondents. [Para 11][280-G-H; 281-A-D]
1.2 While quashing the notices in the impugned order in the writ petitions filed before the High Court, the High Court left it open to the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing fresh show cause notices on the allegations made against the respondents, but at the same time having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order passed by the High Court, there is no error in the order passed by the High Court so as to interfere with the same. As the Cantonment Act, 2006 has come into force from 18.12.2006, appellants to take fresh action only in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Act. [Paras 12, 13][281-E-H]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.