Section 181(6) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, providing for deemed sanction in case of neglect or omission by the Cantonment Board to make and deliver any order of sanction or disapproval within the prescribed period, applies even where the land is under the management of the Military Estates Officer.

( 1 ) THIS First Appeal No. 54 of 1964 coming up quarter of a century after the action commenced on Oct. 6, 1959 wherein, as is not unusual, the suitor has not survived, is another grim reminder to crying need for urgent judicial reform in the system. To apportion blame is not the object; this is the resultant of a cumulative set of factors - the various actors having different role to Play.

( 2 ) ONE Jyoti Prasad Upadhyaya was the owner of house No. 18 The Mall, Agra Cantonment, Agra. Land is freehold covered under old grant. There was partition by a Civil Court decree - the division was by metes and bounds. Govind Behari Lal held, by purchase made on 15th Feb. , 1941, 1/4th share (which was separated) and shown as house No. 18/1 in the Cantonment Board record. On his death his son Jai Raj Behari Lal and the widow made transfer of house No. 18/1 by registered sale deed dated 2nd Dec. , 1957, in favour of Vishwanath Goyal and his wife for consideration. The vendees intended to renovate and raise certain new constructions on the land purchased. For this, Vishwanath Goyal applied to the Cantonment Board for sanction by giving notice required under S. 179 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on July 14, 1958. A written communication was sent by him thereafter on 18th Oct. , 1958, since, according to the plaintiff, there was no order received from the Board on his application. This was under S. 181 (6) of the Act. It was followed by a series of such communications to which I shall revert later, but there being no response from the other side, the plaintiff began to raise constructions on assumption of deemed sanction from the Board. The Board reacted by giving notice dated March 18, 1959, under S. 185 (1) directing the plaintiff to stop unauthorised construction. Due allegedly to non-compliance to this notice, the Board followed it up by an order under S. 256 of the Act to demolish the impugned construction. This was given by notice in writing dated 31st Aug. , 1959. Vishwanath Goyal instituted the suit with these allegations seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Cantonment Board from demolishing the constructions contending that the notice issued by the Board is illegal, inoperative and void.

( 3 ) IN defence the Board took the stand that the plan received from the plaintiff on 14th July, 1958, was returned to him for correction and re-submission because it was incomplete, defective and against the bye-laws, The plan was however, not re-submitted. It is denied that the Board was served with notice under S. 181 (6) at any stage. According to the Board there was no basis to proceed on assumption of deemed sanction. The constructions being un-authorised those could be demolished as resolved by the Board under S. 256 of the Act. It is pleaded also that the suit is barred by Ss. 274/278 of the Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED Civil Judge, Agra dismissed, the suit on Dec. 14, 1962, being of opinion that the plan submitted by the plaintiff with the notice seeking sanction for construction had been returned to him. It was observed that there are discrepancies between the construction proposed to be raised as appearing from that plan and the building actually constructed. He found it unnecessary to decide whether there was written communication made by the plaintiff to the Cantonment Board and observed that it is immaterial whether or not the Cantonment Board neglected or failed to accord sanction within the prescribed period whereby deemed sanction may be inferred in accordance with S. 181 (6) of the Act. The suit was also held to be barred in view of Ss. 274/278 of the Act since there was no appeal filed by the plaintiff in the matter. Aggrieved the plaintiff preferred this appeal and since he died on Nov. 24, 1968, his legal representatives have been substituted.

( 5 ) UPON the appeal coming up for hearing on March 19, 1979, Sri J. N. Tewari, learned counsel for the Cantonment Board, (re