1972 Supreme(Del) 192

High Court Of Delhi
RAM NARAIN - Appellant
Versus
CANTONMENT BOARD DELHI - Respondent
Civil 1287 of 1971
Decided On : 08/17/1972

The neglect or omission of the Cantonment Board to make and deliver to the person who has given notice under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, any order of any nature specified in Section 181, for one month after the receipt of a valid notice, and such person thereafter by a written communication sent by registered post to the Board calls the attention of the Board to the neglect or omission, then, if such neglect or omission continues for a further period of fifteen days from the date of such communication the Board shall be deemed to have given sanction to the erection or re-erection, as the case may be, unconditionally.

Headnote:

CANTONMENTS ACT - SECTION 179, 180, 181, 183 - SANCTION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CINEMA HOUSE - DEEMED SANCTION - EXTENSION OF TIME - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, SECTIONS 4 AND 6 - NOTIFICATION - MASTER PLAN - USE OF LAND.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, joint owners of freehold land, sought a declaration that the sanction applied for by them under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (Act) for erecting a cinema house on their land was deemed to have been unconditionally granted under Section 181 of the Act and that a resolution passed by respondent Cantonment Board was illegal. They also sought a declaration that respondent Cantonment Board was legally obliged to consider their application for extension of time for construction of the cinema house as the statutory sanction for construction of the building was deemed to have been accorded to them under Section 181(6) of the Act which was valid for a period of one year.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the plan submitted by the petitioners for sanction for constructing a cinema building vide notice dated June 29, 1970 was deemed to have been sanctioned and in that view of the matter the petitioners were within their right to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the Court for seeking the reliefs sought in the writ petition. It was further held that it is obligatory on respondent Cantonment Executive Officer to allow an extension and that the petitioners cannot be discriminated against arbitrarily due to the unjustifiable action of respondents. However, the Court dismissed the writ petition in respect of other prayers, including the prayer for extension of time, considering the fact that the land in question had been notified for acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose.

Issues: 1. Whether the plan submitted by the petitioners for sanction for constructing a cinema building was deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 181(6) of the Cantonments Act, 1924? 2. Whether the respondent Cantonment Board was legally obliged to consider the petitioners' application for extension of time for construction of the cinema house? 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought in the writ petition, including a declaration that the resolution passed by the respondent Cantonment Board was illegal?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the plan submitted by the petitioners was deemed to have been sanctioned in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 181 of the Act since the Board neglected to make or deliver to the petitioners any order within one month after the receipt of the notice and the petitioners thereafter called the attention of the Board to the neglect/omission committed by it for not making an order within one month of the receipt of notice from a party intimating his intention to erect or re-erect a building. The Court relied on the deeming provision of the law and the cases of Smt. Kamla Bhandari v. Chief Commr., P. K. Ramaswamy v. Municipality of Coimbatore, and Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Darshan Lal to support its view. 2. The Court held that there was no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the respondent Cantonment Board was legally obliged to consider their application for extension of time for construction of the cinema house as the main reason for not starting and completing construction of the building within the stipulated period of one year from the date when the plan of the petitioners was deemed to have been sanctioned was "because of the strange attitude adopted by the Cantonment Board" in considering that the plan had already been rejected in October, 1969. The Court also considered the fact that the land in question had been notified for acquisition under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for a public purpose. 3. The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the plan for construction of the cinema submitted with notice dated June 29, 1970 would be deemed to have been sanctioned on the expiry of 15 days with effect from July 31, 1971 on the receipt of notice, and quashed the resolution passed by the respondent Cantonment Board. However, the writ was dismissed in respect of other prayers, including the prayer for extension of time.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the plan for construction of the cinema submitted with notice dated June 29, 1970 would be deemed to have been sanctioned on the expiry of 15 days with effect from July 31, 1971 on the receipt of notice, and quashed the resolution passed by the respondent Cantonment Board. However, the writ was dismissed in respect of other prayers, including the prayer for extension of time.