Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—In this group of petitions, the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of the notices issued under Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for stopping the constructions raised unauthorisedly by the petitioners as well as for the quashing of the notices issued for demolition of the constructions so raised. The petitioners have also prayed for the quashing of the appellate order passed under Section 340 of the Act. Similar orders and notices have been issued under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the “old Act”).

2. The basic grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is, that the notice issued by the Chief Executive Officer was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the said officer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 248(1) of the Act either for stopping the constructions or for demolition of the constructions so allegedly raised and that the power could only be exercised by the Cantonment Board and that the said power has not been delegated under Section 237 of the Act. Further grievance is, that the reply to the show-cause notice was not considered and that no specific order was passed rejecting the petitioner’s reply. On the other hand, the respondents have proceeded to mechanically pass an order for demolition. The challenge is also on the ground, that the notice issued under Section 248 (1) of the Act, either for stopping the construction or for demolition does not indicate that the erection or re-erection is an offence under Section 247 of the Act, and consequently, in the absence of any finding that such erection or re-erection is an offence under Section 247 of the Act, the notice issued under Section 248(1) of the Act was wholly illegal and liable to be quashed. It was further contended that the notice issued under Section 248 of the Act did not indicate the date of construction, inasmuch as, Section 248 of the Act provides that a notice has to be issued within 12 months from the date of the alleged construction. It was therefore urged that since the date of construction was not mentioned, the notice was barred by limitation.

3. Heard Sri K.K.Arora, Sri Sumit Daga, Sri P.K.Jain, the learned Senior Counsel and Sri Akhtar Ali for the petitioners and Sri S.K.Rai, Sri Mohd. Isa Khan and Sri Prashant Mathur and Sri S.B.Singh for the Cantonment Board.

The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, which are more or less common in all the writ petitions is, that a notice was issued to the petitioners under Section 248(1) of the Act by the Chief Executive Officer to stop the construction. A reply was given by the owner or the occupier or by the tenant disputing the alleged construction. It is alleged that the reply was not considered and that an order of demolition was passed. An appeal was filed and, without giving an opportunity of hearing, the appeal was dismissed in a mechanical manner. It was contended, that all the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer as well as by the appellate authority have been mechanically passed without any application of mind and that all these orders are more or less identical and that it would be clear that the orders have been passed by using a cut paste method. It was also urged that the burden to prove that the constructions were not raised or that it was only minor repairs, was wrongly placed upon the petitioners.

4. The basic contention in all these petitions is, that minor repair, if any, was being done by the petitioner and that there was no new construction nor there was any erection or re-erection of a building. It was contended that since only minor repairs were being carried out, no permission was required under the Act or under the old Act. In some cases, the Court finds that a boundary wall was being raised and it was contended that even for raising a boundary wall, no permission or sanction was required under the Act.

5. On the other hand, the c