JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and:

1. By appropriate writ/order or direction, the notice dated 12.02.2023 & 18.02.2023 (Annex.10 & 12) as well as notice dated 20.02.2023 (Annex. 13) may kindly be

declared illegal and the same kindly be quashed and set aside.

2. By an appropriate writ/order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to raise his construction on his own patta-suda and JDA approved land.

3. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.”

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, in the year 2021, the petitioner had purchased a plot no.5 Sec. ‘C’, measuring 251.66 sq.yards, situated at Revenue Village Digadi, Jodhpur, and upon an application being filed in respect of the said land, the Jodhpur Development Authority (JDA) issued a freehold patta on 21.06.2022, in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, an application, alongwith requisite fee, seeking permission for raising construction was submitted by the petitioner, whereupon the site plan was approved by the JDA and construction permission was granted to the petitioner.

2.1. The Ministry of Defence, Government of India (MoD) had issued guidelines for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the Local Military Authority (LMA) in the matter of raising constructions, nearby Defence Establishments/Installations located at 193 stations in Part-A of Annexure to the circular dated 21.10.2016, whereby the security restrictions would apply upto 10 meters from the outer wall of such Defence Establishments to maintain a clear line of sight for effective surveillance. Thereafter, vide letter 23.12.2022, another guideline was issued by the MoD extending the limit of 10 meters to 50 meters.

2.2. As a subsequent development, a notice was served upon the petitioner by the respondent no.2 on 12.02.2023 instructing him against carrying out any construction work near Defence area, otherwise stipulated action (which would also include lodged of FIR) against him could be taken and demolition of construction as well. Thereafter the JDA sought mauka report from concerned officials and on 16.02.2023, the mauka report clearly stated that the petitioner was constructing on his own land and had construction permission.

2.3. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 sent a notice to JDA on 18.02.2023 requesting to restrain the petitioner from raising any construction over the land in question. In pursuance of the said notice of the respondent no. 2, the JDA sent a notice on 20.02.2023 to the petitioner directing him to stop the construction activity immediately, failing which, the petitioner shall be subjected to an appropriate legal action. Aggrieved of the notices dated 12.02.2023, 18.02.2023 & 20.02.2023, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had taken prior permission for the construction work from the JDA and the site plan for his plot was also approved. It was further submitted that such permission was granted in accordance with the guidelines of the MoD issued in the year 2016, wherein the construction or repair activity within restricted zone of 10 meters would require prior NOC from LMA/Defence Establishments; however the petitioner’s construction in question was beyond such restricted zone.

3.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the guidelines expanding the restricted zone from 10 meters to 50 meters were issued on 23.12.2022, after the petitioner had already obtained construction permission and began the construction activity on the plot in question, and thus, such guidelines could not be applied in a retrospective manner.

3.2. It was also submitted that the Defence authorities