Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 12th March, 2013 issued by the Estate Officer, Agra under Section 5-A(2) of the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971).

2. A perusal of the said notice indicates that the land belongs to the Government of India and is in the cantonment area and that the occupancy rights were only given under the old grants for residential purposes. It was alleged in the notice that the bungalow was transferred without seeking prior permission from the Competent Authority under the Governor General Regulations No. 179 and, that as per the site inspection, the petitioner has raised a brick wall surrounding the bungalow without prior permission, on the night of 9th and 10th March, 2013. The Estate Officer, accordingly, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner to remove the structure or show-cause as to why the structure should not be removed by the authorities at the expense of the petitioner.

3. Heard Sri Navin Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudeep Harkauli and Sri A.D. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Rai, the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The learned Senior Counsel contended that the impugned notice was patently without jurisdiction and was liable to be quashed, inasmuch as no permission was required under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006) for erection of a boundary wall. The learned Senior Counsel contended that as per Sections 234, 235 and 238 of the Act of 2006 sanction, if any, was only required for the construction of a building and not for a boundary wall. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the definition of the word “building” as defined under Section 2(d) which means a house, outhouse etc. and does not include a boundary wall. The learned Senior Counsel consequently submitted that since no permission was required, the impugned notice issued under the Act of 1971 was ex facie illegal and was liable to be quashed.

5. Sri S.K. Rai, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under the Act of 2006, the land and buildings are managed by various authorities. The Act of 2006 applies to such bungalows, which are managed by the Cantonment Board. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner’s bungalow is under the old grants, which is managed by the Defence Estate Officer and, therefore, the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1937) is applicable, which has been framed under Section 280 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and inspite of the repeal of the said Act, the Rules of 1937 are saved by virtue of Section 360 of the Act of 2006. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that from a bare perusal of the sale-deed annexed to the writ petition, the land is an old grants and is classified as a B-III land as per the extract from the General Land Register. Under Rule 6 of the Rules of 1937, B-III land is managed by the Defence Estate Officer and not by the Cantonment Board and, therefore, the Act of 2006 was not applicable.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the Governor General Regulations No. 179 dated 12th September, 1836 would apply which still has the force of law as per the decision of the Supreme Court. The learned counsel submitted that for the purpose of management of defence land under old grants, the Defence Estate Officer is the Competent Authority, who manages the land under the Cantonments Land Administration Rules, 1937 read with Governor General Regulations No. 179 dated 12th September, 1836. The learned counsel further submitted that in the alternative the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Act of 2006 did not require any permission to be given for construction of a boundary wall was patently erroneous, inasmuch as under Section 261 of the Act of