IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

120 RSA-801-2022 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 Sunita Kumari …Appellant Versus Cantonment Board Ferozepur and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

(Through Virtual Mode – VC)

Mr. Arun Gosain, Senior Govt. Counsel, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

Defendant No.3-Sunita Kumari is in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 09.12.2019 passed by the Court of District Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal filed by her against the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2018 passed by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur, vide which the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3 The plaintiffs (Cantonment Board, Ferozepur and Union of India) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 30.05.2001 executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through their General Power of Attorney, in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of House bearing portion of House No. 156(P), situated at Sant Lal Road, Ferozepur Cantt (fully detailed in the plaint), was wrong, null and void, against the provisions of the Cantonment Act, without jurisdiction and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiffs and was liable to be set aside. A consequential relief of permanent injunction was also sought restraining defendant No.3 from further alienating the suit property in any manner, whatsoever, to anybody and also restraining defendant No.4 from making registration of any such sale deed without obtaining NOC (No Objection Certificate) from the Central Government, as per the provisions of the Cantonment Act.

4. It was claimed that Bungalow No. 156(P) (hereinafter referred to as the `suit property’) was owned by the Central Government. It was an old grant property and that as per the General Land Register, the Holders of Occupancy Rights (HORs) of the suit property were Lt. Col. Manmohan Nath Dutt, Smt. Promila Chibber, Smt. Rama Chibber, Sh. Sandeep Dutt and Sh. Manoj Dutt. The said HORs had no right to sell the same. It was further averred that defendant Nos. 1 and 2, through their General Power of Attorney, had sold the suit property to defendant No.3 despite knowing well that they had no right to alienate. It was further averred that if any HOR wanted to sell any such property, he/she had to first get the property converted into free hold by paying cost of land to the Government of India and to get title in their favour. Only thereafter, the HOR could sell the free hold property or any part thereof to any person, other than the Government of India, after first making an offer in writing to sell the same to the Government of India, and if the Government of India, within three months of such offer had declined or neglected to purchase the same. Transfer of HORs over the entire property as a whole required prior sanction of the Central Government.

5. It was further averred that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. Harish Chand Anand, 1995 Supp.(4), SCC 133 and Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surinder Kumar Vakeel & Others, (1999), 3 SCC 555, has held that the land in Cantonment area was occupied only as an occupant/licencee and any transfer of the property situated therein, required prior approval of the defence establishment. It was further averred that defendants No.1 to 4 had registered the sale deed without taking any NOC from the Central Government. The plaintiffs had moved various applications to defendants No.4 to 6 for cancellation of the sale deed, but all in vain.

6. Defendants No.3, 4 and 6 had appeared and filed separate written statements, whereas suit against defendants No.1 and 2 was dismissed in default for non-compliance of the order(s) of the Court.

7. In her written statement, defendant No.3 took preliminary objections regardin