(1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. The only aspect on which there is no issue in this writ petition is the fact that there was an indenture of 11 December, 1968 by which the Military Estate Officer, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow Cantonment, had granted on behalf of the leassor (the President of India) to demise the plot of land to be used by the seven persons mentioned in the deed for the purpose of building "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room."

(2.) THE lease is in reference to military land in Kanpur on the bank of the Ganges within the Cantonment area.

It appears that the seven persons who were favoured with the lease by the Military Estate Officer spread more than was necessary beyond the indication in the lease deed. If they had remained within the confines of the indenture and not spread beyond the "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room, "there would not have been any conflict between them, the military authority and the Cantonment Board or the Military Estate Officer concerned.

(3.) IN the writ petition it is acknowledged that the constructions were made unauthorized by the petitioners. The petitioners received a caution from the respondents and also a warning for the removal of the unauthorised constructions.

(4.) THE Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Tandon, and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A. K. Sinha. THE respondents do not recognise the status of the petitioners to do as they please and anything with the land under lease. THE contention of the respondents is that the lease confines itself to the grant in favour of the seven persons so named and for the specific purpose for which it has been granted. Legally, counsel for the respondents acknowledges that if the constructions had been confined as are mentioned in the indenture, then the respondents would acknowledge that the lease may be enjoyed and retained for the period of its duration. Beyond this, they say, they are not ready to acknowledge any other person away from those mentioned in the indenture. Counsel for the respondents desired this aspect of his submission to be noted. In effect, the status of the petitioners is not acknowledged.

Notwithstanding the submission on behalf of the petitioners or the respondents, the Court views the situation thus:

(5.) THE purpose of making the grant by the Military and the Cantonment Board is on record. THE object is indicated. THE constructions which could be made were specified as of "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room. " To cut a long story short, the submissions of the petitioners are that when they submitted a plan for additions and more constructions, the permission was not forthcoming and after waiting for sometime as required by law they set about to make the new constructions. To their aid, the logic drawn is that if the sanction is not forthcoming within a certain period, then the so-called trustees could go ahead and complete the constructions.

(6.) THIS case in this petition will have to be decided on the same ethics by which the Pujari of the temple would like to judge the world with ecclesiastical morality. Ordinary people of the material world are obliged to live by the law and morality and ethics of the spiritual order, if they belong to one. But the petitioners would like to take the temporal power to their advantage. THIS they will not be permitted to. Temple priests and managers will be seen to conform, all things considered in the matters of this case, with the same values as religions demand.

What has been accepted in the petition is that there are unauthorised constructions made without permission but it is prayed that these be regularised. The expression 'unauthorised' and the assumption that it ought to be regularised are replete and repeated time and again in the text of the writ petition.

(7.) THE Court has to see the situation both ways. THE Cantonment or the military administration cannot be humbled or com promised bec