Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
Union of India through Captain Sushmita Banerjee - Petitioner
Versus
Ranchi Municipal Corporation, through its commissioner and ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.327 of 2023, L.P.A. No.328 of 2023
Decided On : 21-03-2024
[WORKS OF DEFENCE ACT] - [Construction Near Military Installations] - [Works of Defence Act, 1903; Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011; Guidelines dated 18.05.2011, 21.10.2016] - The court analyzed the Works of Defence Act, 1903, which imposes restrictions on construction near military installations to ensure national security. It emphasized that the guidelines issued on 18.05.2011, which require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for constructions within specified distances from military areas, take precedence over later guidelines that relaxed these requirements. The court concluded that the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution does not override national security concerns, and restrictions imposed for security purposes do not constitute deprivation of property rights. The court's decision was influenced by the need to prioritize national security over individual property rights, leading to the quashing of the lower court's dismissal of the petitions against the construction activities.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from the dismissal of writ petitions challenging the construction of multi-storied buildings near the Dipatoli Military Station in Ranchi, which were alleged to violate the Works of Defence Act, 1903, and related guidelines. The petitioners argued that the constructions posed a security threat due to their proximity to a military installation, while the respondents contended that the constructions complied with municipal laws and the guidelines in effect at the time.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the petitions without adequately considering the implications of the Works of Defence Act, 1903, and the guidelines issued for construction near military establishments. It held that the guidelines dated 18.05.2011, which require an NOC for constructions within certain distances from military areas, were still applicable and should be enforced to protect national security.
Issues: 1. Whether the guidelines issued under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, require an NOC for construction near military installations? 2. Whether the right to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution can be invoked against national security concerns? 3. The applicability of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, in relation to the Works of Defence Act, 1903.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Works of Defence Act, 1903, and its guidelines prioritize national security over individual property rights. It clarified that restrictions imposed for security purposes do not equate to deprivation of property rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the guidelines issued on 18.05.2011 remain in effect and must be adhered to, despite subsequent relaxations.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the learned Single Judge and allowed the appeals, thereby reinstating the requirement for an NOC for the construction activities in question.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Since the common order passed in W.P.(C) No.2573 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No.788 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge has been challenged in these appeals, therefore, the instant appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
Prayer
2. The instant intra-court appeals preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2573 of 2022 & W.P.(C) No.788 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, while dismissing the writ petitions, it has been observed that none of the writ petitioners, has been able to demonstrate any irregularity nor any illegality in grant of sanction for commercial and building construction by the concerned authority to the respondent no.2 and respondent no.5 in their respective writ petitions in the backdrop of the Guidelines issued from time to time especially Guideline dated 21.10.2016.
3. Since in both the appeals (L.P.A. 327 of 2023 and 328 of 2023 arising out of W.P.(C) No.2573 of 2022 & W.P.(C) No.788 of 2022 respectively) the factual aspects are different and hence, the same are being dealt with separately.
Facts
L.P.A. No.327 of 2023
4. The brief facts of the instant case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2573 of 2022 is that respondent no.2 is currently engaged in the construction of a multistoried building near Gymkhana Club, Ranchi. The said building is located near 500 meters of the military installation "Dipatoli Military Station".
5. It has been averred that the military installation is crucial to the national security of the country as it houses several military personnel, vehicles, ammunitions and other equipment, the movement of which has to be kept confidential and the building shadows the military station.
6. The building, being constructed by the respondent no. 2 directly overlooks the military station thus making it susceptible to spying as well as endangering the life of the troops and other officers. On account of such vulnerability and the imminent threat, the petitioner had come out with a Notification bearing no. 11026/2/2011/D(Lands) dated 18.5.2011 wherein it was envisaged that no construction activity could be undertaken within 100 meters from the boundary wall of the defence area and from 100 meters to 500 meters structures of more than four storied can be constructed after obtaining No Objection Certificate (NOC).
7. This Guideline was subjected to modification vide Guideline dated 21.10.2016 wherein it was decided that No Objection Certificate would be required when the structure is less than 10 meters from the military installation but this recommendation was placed under review. It has been stated that vide Guideline No. 35243/85/Land (Policy and AMC) dated 6.10.2020 it was decided that until such time, a decision is taken the earlier Guideline i.e. Guideline dated 18.5.2011 along with the corrigendum dated 17.11.2015 shall be effective.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that the grievances of the petitioner were brought to the knowledge of the respondents through several representations, which were not acted upon, therefore, the writ petition was preferred but the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2023 by the learned single Judge of this Court. Hence, the instant appeal.
L.P.A. No.328 of 2023
9. The brief facts of the instant case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.788 of 2022 is that the respondent no.5 has started construction of multi-storied residential building in the vicinity of ‘Dipatoli Cantonment’, which is in violation of the Govt. Guideline as contained in letter no. 11026/2/2011/D(Lands) dated 18.5.2011.
10. An information received to Station Head Quarter, Ranchi from the Watch and Ward Unit 523 ASC Battalion that the respondent no. 5 has started clearance work near the parameter fencing of ‘Dipatoli Cantonment’ between Botanical Garden and Cockerel Officers Institute, the re
The Works of Defence Act, 1903, and its guidelines take precedence over local municipal laws regarding construction near military installations, emphasizing that national security concerns outweigh i....
Executive guidelines cannot infringe upon rights protected under the Constitution and must not contradict existing statutory laws.
Amendments to building rules by the State do not violate national security laws, and enforcement of the Works of Defence Act is the responsibility of the Union authorities.
Abeyance of superseding defence circular does not revive prior ones; construction rights crystallize under interim regime permissions; NOC not mandatory beyond 50m without statutory backing or state ....
Point of Law : No such 'NOC' from Defence Authority would be necessary if construction is beyond 10 meters from outer wall of defence installation.
Restrictions on building permits related to military establishments require valid declarations and notifications under the Works of Defence Act, 1903 to be enforceable.
The absence of a valid declaration and Sketch Plan under the Works of Defence Act, 1903, renders any interference with construction activities unlawful.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
