Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner has sought the quashing of the notice dated 13th June, 2007 issued by the Cantonment Board, Agra under Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for demolition of the unauthorised construction. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 9th April, 2009 passed by the General Officer, Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command by which the appeal filed by the petitioner for setting aside the aforesaid notice was disposed of. The order dated 7th May, 2009 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for review of the Appellate Order dated 9th April, 2009 has also been impugned.

2. The dispute in the present petition is about raising of certain constructions by the petitioner in Bungalow No. 47 situate at F.M.C. Road, Agra Cantt. Agra. The said bungalow is on B-3 Old Grant land and the land is managed by the Defence Estate Officer on behalf of the Union of India. The said bungalow was recorded in the name of the petitioner’s father late Brij Mohan Lal Jain and his uncle Mahaveer Prasad Jain. The father of the petitioner died on 13th March, 1989. It is stated that after the death of the father of the petitioner, an oral family settlement took place on 31st July, 2001 but since some differences arose with regard to the implementation of the family settlement, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator in 2005 who gave his award on 28th September, 2005. The portions falling in the share of M.P. Jain, Anil Jain (petitioner), Navin Jain and Ashok Jain were separately marked. It is also stated that the petitioner’s father had submitted the site plan of the bungalow before the Cantonment Board in March, 1978 and thereafter no erection or re-erection or additional construction has been raised. However, as the old constructions fell in the share of the petitioner, the same required repairs/renovation and the petitioner sought permission from the Cantonment Board by the letter dated 3rd September, 2006. The Cantonment Board responded by sending a letter dated 30th September, 2006 to the petitioner requiring him to submit a building plan on application form A and B as was required under Section 179 of the Act and the Bye-Laws. The petitioner then sent the letter dated 4th October, 2006 that he did not intend to raise any construction or structural alteration and the repairs will be carried out within the actual plinth of the area.

3. The Cantonment Board, thereafter, sent two notices both dated 14th March, 2007 to the petitioner. The first notice was issued under Section 239(1) of the Act requiring the petitioner to stop erection or execution of work forthwith since the petitioner was making unauthorised constructions attracting provisions of Sections 235 and 238 of the Act and which also constituted an offence under Section 247 of the Act. The second notice required the petitioner to show cause before 19th March, 2007 why he should not be prosecuted under Section 247 of the Act and why action be not taken for demolition of the unauthorised construction under Sections 248 and 320 of the Act. The details of the unauthorised constructions were mentioned in the notice.

4. The petitioner submitted replies to both the notices. In the reply to the first notice sent under Section 239 of the Act, the petitioner stated that he was not making any new construction which could attract Sections 235 or 238 of the Act. He also pointed out that he had only repaired the damaged structures of the existing bungalow caused because of heavy rain and hail storm. The petitioner also sent a similar reply to the second notice issued to him.

5. The Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, however, sent a notice dated 13th June, 2007 to the petitioner under Section 248 (1) of the Act that the Cantonment Board by its resolution No. 18 dated 15th May, 2007 required the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised constructions since the raising of such constr