Civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for natural justice violations, despite statutory bars under the Cantonments Act.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, praying to set aside the Dismissal Order dated September 05, 2023 passed by 'the District Judge of The Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam' ['learned Trial Judge' for convenience] in a petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of 'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short] in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in O.S. No.66 of 2022, by the Petitioners therein.

2. The Revision Petitioners herein are the Defendants in the Suit in O.S. No.66 of 2022. The Respondent herein is the Plaintiff therein. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid Original Suit seeking a decree for compensation, for mandatory injunction directing the 1^st Defendant to permit the Plaintiff to renovate and replaster the suit property and for costs.

4. The Defendants, after receiving summons, filed an application seeking to reject the plaint for the reason that the plaint is barred as per Section 250 of 'the Cantonments Act, 2006' (hereinafter 'the Cantonments Act').

5. The Plaintiff filed a counter, sum and substance of which is that the Defendants did not properly adhere to the principles of natural justice and further, the Defendants did not seek any relief under the Cantonments Act, whereas the Plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit for damages for the illegal and the mala fide act committed by the Defendants and hence, the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the Suit and therefore, the plaint is maintainable.

6. Mr.M.Vijayan, learned Counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioners/Defendants would submit that as per the Cantonments Act, the 1^st Defendant is the Authority to grant building permission. Without getting prior permission from the 1^st Defendant, the Plaintiff cannot alter or remodel or put up a new construction. The Plaintiff constructed a roof in the 1^st floor of the building and also put up some other additional construction, without the prior approval required from the Defendants. Hence, after issuing notice under Section 238 (1) of the Cantonments Act, the Defendants proceeded with the demolition of the illegal construction in good faith. In case the Plaintiff is aggrieved by the Order passed by the Defendants / Cantonment Authority, he can file an appeal as contemplated under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act. Sections 250 and 338 of the Cantonments Act clearly bars the Civil Suit and hence, Civil Suit would not lie. The learned Trial Judge, without considering the said aspects, dismissed the application to reject the plaint. Hence, he prayed to allow this Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Order passed by the learned Trial Judge and allow the Interlocutory Application in I.A. No.1 of 2022.

7. Per contra, Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Plaintiff would submit that the Defendants did not follow the principles of natural justice before demolishing the buildings. The Plaintiff did not seek any relief under the Cantonments Act nor questioned any of the proceedings thereunder. As the Defendants committed an illegal act with mala fide intent, the Plaintiff seeks a remedy under common law, which remains available for the purpose of seeking compensation. The learned Trial Judge rightly dismissed the application. There is no warrant to interfere with it. Hence, he prayed