The absence of a hearing before issuing a notice under Section 248(1) did not violate natural justice, as the petitioner had the right to appeal. The court emphasized the need to stop unauthorized construction immediately.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, besides seeking declaration that Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme of the Constitution of India, also seeks quashing of the notices dated 23rd September, 2013, 22nd January, 2014, 28th February, 2014 and 27th August, 2014 of the respondent under the said Section 248 (1) to the petitioner and order of restraining the respondent from proceeding to demolish the property of the petitioner as well as a direction to the respondent, to permit the petitioner to effect necessary repairs in its property and to regularize the construction existing in the property by taking action on the building plans submitted by the petitioner.

2. The petition came up before this Court first on 27th October, 2014 when upon our enquiring from the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as to how the writ petition in so far as seeking reliefs other than of impugning the validity of Section 248(1) supra is maintainable in the face of availability of alternative remedy of appeal, and which we were told that the petitioner had already availed of, the senior counsel for the petitioner confined the present writ petition only to the relief of challenging the vires of Section 248(1) supra.

3. The facts in so far as necessary on the aspect of vires of Section 248(1) supra are as under.

4. The petitioner claims, (i) to have in or about the year 2012 purchased property bearing no.CB 390, measuring 422 sq. yds. in the Cantonment Board Area, situated at Naraina, Delhi Cantt, Delhi – 110 010; (ii) the person from whom the petitioner purchased the property has not provided the petitioner with any sanctioned plan of the property; (iii) the old construction of the property was in the form of three floors including a basement; (iv) the petitioner immediately after the purchase of the property on 30th October, 2012, on 8th March, 2013 submitted a site plan for sanction of the structure standing on the property; (v) after purchase of the property to have initiated repair work “which though might have been somewhat substantial since the construction at the site was very old”; (vi) that the building plan submitted by the petitioner was returned by the respondent vide letter dated 29th April, 2013 since the requisite processing fee was not enclosed; (vii) the respondent construed the same to be commencement of new construction “and has declined to sanction the building plan on this ground”; (viii) that for the work of repairs no permission is required from any authority; (ix) the officials of the respondent while visiting the property in a routine manner obstructed the said renovation work inspite of the petitioner having spent approximately Rs.4 crores on purchase of the property; (x) the respondent itself is not having any record of any sanctioned plan in its office but is alleging unauthorized construction; (xi) the petitioner stopped the works and applied to the respondent for regularization of the entire structure; (xii) the petitioner re-submitted the building plans but the respondent refused to sanction the same on the ground of unauthorized construction having already commenced and on the contrary issued notices under Section 248(1); and, (xiii) that on account of interference by the respondent the petitioner is suffering.

5. Sub-section (1) of Section 248 vires whereof is challenged, is as under:-

“248. Power to stop erection or re-erection or to demolish.- (1) The Board may, at any time, by notice in writing, direct the owner, lessee or occupier of any land in the cantonment to stop the erection or re- erection of a building in any case in which the Board considers that such erection or re- erection is an offence under section 247 and may, in any such case or in any other case in which the Board considers that the erection or re- erection of a building is an offence under section 247, within twelve months of the