The GLR's legal effect, the power of the Cantonment Board to decide on land use, and the limited scope of the Central Government's review powers under section 57 of the 2006 Act were central legal points established in the judgment.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.7.2011. By the said order the learned Single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent and quashed the order dated 7.2.2011 issued by the appellant No. 2/Joint Secretary, Ministry of Defence. The impugned order also restores the order of the Cantonment Board, Meerut/appellant No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the CB) dated 4.1.2008 sanctioning the building plans of the respondent.

2. The brief facts as urged in the Writ Petition are that the respondent is the successor to the title of the property in question, namely, 167, Chappel Street, Meerut Cantt, which is a building called “Pooranchand Building” comprising of a Cinema Hall and shops. It is urged that the plot and buildings are located in the bazaar area of Meerut Cantonment and were used for commercial purposes. It is stated that the property has been granted under the Old Grant Terms. It is urged that in the GLR, i.e. General Land Register prepared under Rule 3 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 the property was wrongly shown as a bunglow. It is further urged that in the early 1930 a Cinema Hall which was also known as Palace Theatre and the shops in the property came up with appropriate sanction of the Cantonment authorities. A firm by the name and style of M/s. Pooran Chand and Sons was formed. Business of the firm comprised inter alia cinema exhibition. The firm carried on the business in Palace Theatre, Meerut and Picture Palace, Jublee Theatre at Mussorie. Reliance is placed upon various documents to support the case of the petitioners including resolution dated 31.12.1953 of the CB approving additions/alterations in the said building and a second resolution of the CB dated 14.6.1957 which also records and recognises the earlier change of purpose to contend that right since 1930 the cinema hall and shops have been in existence.

3. It is urged that the cinema hall and shops being more than 70 years old had become dilapidated and it became necessary to demolish the whole structure and erect a new building. The respondent, it is stated submitted a notice alongwith the completion plan to erect/re-erect and alter the building on 15.2.2003 under section 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (Hereinafter referred to as The 1924 Act) to The CB. The building plans were returned by the CB on 26.2.2003 with the requirement that the respondent may get mutation done in his favour before the plan could be sanctioned. The respondent duly complied with the said requirement. Mutation was effected in favour of the respondent on 9.8.2005. The respondent also on 22.2.2006 applied for correction of the entries in the General Land Register i.e. GLR to show the property as commercial. The respondent applied for the correction so that the GLR reflects the situation which has existed at site for the last 70 years.

4. In the meantime, the 1924 Act was repealed and was replaced by the Cantonments Act, 2006 (Hereinafter referred to as The 2006 Act).

5. On the application of the respondent for change of GLR, the CB recognising the commercial nature of the property sent a recommendation to the concerned authority DGDE, Lucknow to amend the GLR. The Principal Director, Defence Estate of Lucknow on 27.2.2006 is said to have written to appellant No. 1 that a change of purpose has already been approved by the CB for a shop and a cinema hall way back in 1952. Further, correspondence took place between the appellant authorities in this regard when the respondent on 1.8.2007 sent a communication pointing out that as per legal advise received by him, it was not necessary to record any amendment in the GLR as the cinema hall and shops were sanctioned as far back as in 1935, which fact is also duly reflected in the resolution of the CB of 1952 and 1957. Hence, the respondent requested that his application for amendment of GLR be treated as withdrawn and hi