M.S.K. Jaiswal, J.

This writ petition is filed questioning the impugned notice, dated 05.08.2008 issued by the respondent to Shri Eduji Shorabji Shenoy, by and under which, the respondent called upon the addressee to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- plus a further sum of Rs. 37,00,000/- for converting the bungalow of the respondent, which is under occupation of the petitioner, from residential purpose to commercial purpose.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record.

3. The petitioner is in occupation of part of Bungalow, bearing No. 174, situated at Boinpally, Secunderabad as tenant and the bungalow is being used as godown to store his decorative items. He has been paying the agreed rent and taxes since more than 10 years to his landlord. According to the petitioner, the said bungalow belongs to M/s. late Khan Bahadur Edulji S. Chenoy Trust, but not to the respondent. The provisions of section 244 of Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are not applicable to the facts of the case. The respondent, earlier, issued a notice on 13.02.2001, proposing to revise the assessment for the period from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2003, which clearly shows that the property was made into commercial and the annual rental value was revised from Rs. 7,600/- to Rs. 4,25,600/- and the tax being collected from the year 2000. Hence the petitioner prays to set aside the impugned notice.

4. The respondent filed counter denying the averments of the writ petitioner. The property in question was recorded in the general land register prepared and maintained by the Defence Estate Officer as old grant. The grant was given under Order No. 179 of Governor General-in-Council of 1836. The 1836 order expressly provided that the title to the land cannot be transferred, but only the occupancy rights can be given in respect of the land. The Government can resume the land and there is a restriction imposed on the holder of the occupancy right that the property can be utilized only for residential purpose and not for any other purpose. The Cantonment Act, 2006 came into force with effect from 17.12.2006 and as per the special provision, no person without the written permission of the Board or otherwise than in conformity with the condition, if any, shall use the building for any other purpose other than the purpose for which the building was erected. The holder of occupancy right is not entitled to let out a portion of the old grant bungalow on lease to any 3rd party without permission of the Government of India, which is the owner of the land. As per the grant order, the status of the petitioner is that of a trespasser to the property as no prior permission of Central Government was obtained. The records maintained by Defence Estate Officer did not manifest that the holder of occupancy right is a trust. The alleged lease transaction between the petitioner and the alleged trust is disputed in toto. The petitioner has no locus stani or any de jure right to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court and hence prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice cannot be sustained for more than one reason. It is submitted that the notice has been issued without following the procedure and without finding the petitioner guilty of the violation, the respondent proceeded to impose penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- per day, which was quantified to Rs. 38 lakhs. He further submits that it is not known as to from what date the alleged violation is being taken into consideration.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as long back as in the year 2001 the respondent has revised the property tax for the property in question and enhanced the property tax treating it as commercial Auto Garage, and vide the proceedings dated 13.02.2001 in file No. TS/Tri. Asst/J/817, the existing annual rental value of the property in question was enhance