Implied sanction of a construction plan under Section 181(6) of the Cantonment Act arises from the Board's neglect or omission to take a decision within the prescribed period and the person concerned sending a written communication calling attention to the neglect or omission.

, J.

1. This appeal was filed by Basdev Mittal, the plaintiff, whose suit was dismissed by the trial Court and further appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge. Suit was filed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Cantonment Board from demolishing portion, shown red in the site plan attached with the plaint of House No.4, Mohalla No.2, Jalandhar Cantt. The plaintiff claimed to be owner of the house in dispute wherein he wanted to add one room alongwith a projection He submitted the plan to the Board for sanction on April 15, 1971 Having received no reply he wrote a letter to the Borard on March 15 1972 The letter was sent under postal certificate.15 days time was given to the Board to grant the permission to construct the building Since no intimation was received in response to the aforesaid letter the plaintiff treated silence on the part of the Board as implied permission He started construction. However, he was served with a notice dated July 24, 19 72 issued by the Board asking him to stop the construction This followed by other notices issued under Sections 185 and 187 of the Cantonment Act In the suit for injunction the plaintiff challenged these notices It may further be stated that before filing the suit the plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the notices which was dismissed by Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Western Command Smile on July 23, 1974 and the suit was filed on August 13, 1974.

2. The Cantonment Board contested the suit taking up different pleas inter alia alleging that the suit was barred by time, notices issued ware legal, and Jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit was also challenged. The suit was tried on the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the house in dispute OPP.2. Whether the notices issued by the defendant are illegal, arbitrary, malafide, capracious and unconstitutional as alleged in para 8 of the plaint OPP.

3. Whether the suit is time barred OPP.

4. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit OPP.

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for OPP.

6. Relief.3. The trial Court on issue No.1 held the plaintiff to be the owner of the house in dispute. Under issue No.2 notices issued by the Board were held to be legal. Under issue No.2 the suit was held to be time barred. Under issue No.4 the civil Court was held to have the jurisdiction, Under issue No.5 the plaintiff was held not entitled to the injunction prayed for and the suit was dismissed. As stated above appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Additional District Judge and now he has approached this Court.4. The approach of both the Courts below holding the suits to be barred by time is not correct. The Courts below were of the opinion that the cause of action accured when initially the Board issued notices to the plaintiff on December 4, 1972. Exhibits P.7 and P.8 and the present suit having been filed beyond six months was barred by time The contention of counsel for the appellant is that a statutory appeal was provided to challenge those notices and the plaintiff availed of the said remedy and it was on July 23, 1974 that when his appeal was finally dismissed by the Deputy Director Military Lands and Cantonments, Western Command, Simla, that cause of action accured to him to challenge the said order and the notices for filing the civil suit and the present suit having been filed within six months therefrom is within intime. There is force in this contention. Sec.274 of the Act provides that any person aggrieved by any order described in the 3rd column of Schedule-V could appeal to the Authorities specified in that behalf in the 4th column of the said Schedule. Schedule V attached to the Act mentions that when Board issues notice to alter or demolish building under Sec.185 of the Act, the appeal could be filed before the Appellate Authority (Officer Commanding-in Chief, the Cammandant, or other authority a