Back
2020 Supreme(All) 1326
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Cantonment Board Agra Cantt and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Pushpa Rani Gupta and Ors. - Appellants
Second Appeal No. 904 of 2003
Decided On : 26-05-2020
For the Appellant : C.B. Gupta
For the Respondents: SC
Headnote:
Employment and service – Quash of order - Authority having jurisdiction - Granting an injunction in favor of plaintiff - This appeal has been instituted by Cantonment Board Agra arrayed as defendant Original Suit - Through Cantonment Board Agra and others - On orders passed by this Court notices were issued to respondents by ordinary process as well as by - Service report on notice sent neither undelivered cover nor AD received back - After service - Report of process server regarding service of notice upon respondents 1 to endorsed remark refused to accept – Held, notices and proceedings taken out by cantonment authorities regarding illegal constructions have been upheld as lawful - proceedings have to run their course - Long years have passed since proceedings were stalled, by interdicts of Courts - In view of holding of this Court following directions are issued to the appellant/competent authority - Appellant/competent authority shall proceed with the adjudication of controversy in pursuance of said notices issued to plaintiffs-respondents under various provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924 - Fresh copies of the said notices shall be issued to plaintiffs-respondents within a period of four months from date of receipt of a certified copy of this order - Plaintiffs-respondents shall be granted six weeks time to tender their reply to said notices - Competent appellant cantonment authority shall thereafter decide controversy on its merits by a reasoned and speaking order to be passed within a period of three months from date of receipt of reply of plaintiffs-defendants - In case plaintiffs-respondents do not respond to aforesaid notices or fail to tender their reply to same appellant/competent authority shall be at full liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Ajay Bhanot, J.
1. The instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2003 entered by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, in Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1999 (Cantonment Board, Agra Cantt. v. Smt. Pushpa Rani Gupta and others), which has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 29.4.1999, rendered by the learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, in Original Suit No. 1300 of 1984, Sri Chiman Lal (since deceased) Through L.Rs. v. Cantonment Board, Agra and others), granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiff.
2. This appeal has been instituted by the Cantonment Board, Agra, arrayed as defendant No. 1, in the Original Suit No. 1300 of 1984, Sri Chiman Lal (since deceased) Through L.Rs. v. Cantonment Board, Agra and others).
3. On orders passed by this Court on 5.3.2019 notices were issued to the respondents, by ordinary process as well as by RPAD. The service report on notice sent by RPAD records, "neither undelivered cover nor AD received back. after service as yet". The report of the process server regarding service of notice upon respondents 1 to 9, endorsed the remark "refused to accept".
4. In view of the service reports mentioned above, the service upon the respondents is sufficient. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 9, despite service of notices. The Court proceeded to hear the matter on merits.
5. Civil action was brought by the plaintiff, by instituting Original Suit No. 1300 of 1984, Sri Chiman Lal Gupta (since deceased) through L.Rs. v. Cantonment Board, Agra and others before the learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra. The plaintiff prayed for permanently injuncting the defendant No. 1/Cantonment Board from demolishing or damaging any part of the suit property. The description of the property as given at the foot of the plaint is, 90 Grand Parade Road, Agra Cantt, Agra. The L.Rs.' of the plaintiff Chiman Lal (since deceased) were duly substituted on 14.7.1987 in the Court below.
6. According to the plaint, the plaintiff-respondents sought requisite sanction from the competent authority of the Cantonment Board, Agra, for renovation and reconstruction of the disputed property. The sanction was not granted by the competent authority. The plaintiff, however, started reconstruction of the disputed property. The defendant No. 1-appellant took out proceedings under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (as amended from time to time) against the plaintiffs, for erecting constructions/re-erection of constructions without requisite permission from the competent authority under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (as amended from time to time). The defendant No. 1-appellant noticed the plaintiffs on 5.12.1984, to show-cause as to why the newly erected constructions be not demolished, for want of sanction and having been made in violation of the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (as amended from time to time). The cause of action for the suit, according to the plaint, arose when the defendant No. 1-appellant issued a notice dated 5.12.1984, for demolition of the aforesaid constructions raised by the plaintiffs on the disputed property.
7. The defendant No. 1-appellant entered a written statement in opposition to the plaint. The written statement asserted that the construction was unauthorised, and was liable to be demolished under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (as amended from time to time). The defendant No. 1-appellant took a specific plea of lack of jurisdiction of the trial Court.
8. According to the written statement, the suit was premature since no demolition order was passed against the appellants.
9. The Cantonment Board also took out other notices dated 3.12.1984 (Paper No. 66-ga) 4.12.1984, (Paper No. 68-ga), 5.12.1984 (Paper No. 11-ga, 11.12.1984 (Paper No. 75-ga) issued under Section 179 read with Secti
