Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3031 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ameer Shoket Respondent :- Union Of India & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Govind Krishna Respondent Counsel :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the
record.
Sri Munish Ranjan Tiwari appears for the respondents.
By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the
notice-cum-direction dated 4-1-2010 (Annexure No.8 to the writ
petition). By an amendment application the petitioner has now
prayed for quashing of the order dated 13-11-2009 and notice-
cum-direction dated 3-12-2008 and 9-2-2009 (Annexure No. 4 and
5 to the writ petition). The petitioner claims to have purchased, by
registered sale deed dated 18-9-2008 a portion of Bungalow no.
202, Pt. Tiwari Quarters Westend Road, Meerut Cantt. A show
cause notice was issued by the Cantonment Board dated 29-11-
2008 under section 247 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 to the
petitioner alleging that unauthorised construction is reported to
have been carried out in bungalow No. 202, Pt. Tiwari Quarters
Westend Road, Meerut Cantt. without prior sanction of the
Cantonment Board. The details of unauthorised construction
mentioned in the show cause notice is as follows :-
Ground Floor
1. Room measuring 16′ – 3″ x 12′ x -0″ is being constructed in
the open compound of Bungalow No. 202/pt Tiwari
Quarters Westend Road, Meerut Cantt.
2. Gallery 5′-0″ wide is being constructed towards east of item
no. 1.
3. Room measuring 10′-0″ x 11′-11″ is being constructed
towards north of item no.2.
4. Bath 9′ – 3″ x 6′-6″ is being constructed towards west of
item. no.1.
5. Store 9′-3″ x 6′ -3″ is being constructed towards west of item
no.1.
6. Room 17′ – 9″ x 11′ – 10″ is being constructed towards west
of item no. 3.
7. Verandah 19′-6″x12′-6″ is being constructed towards north
of item no. 3, 6.
8. Stair case 3′-9″ wide is being constructed towards east of
item no.7.
The petitioner submitted his reply on 1-1-2009 stating therein that
the constructions are not existing and no unauthorised
constructions were made. General allegations were made in the
reply. Again a notice was given on 3-12-2008 giving details of
unauthorised construction. Reply of the petitioner includes reply to
both the notices. The petitioner filed an appeal before the
competent authority being Appeal No. 7 and 17 of 2009. Said
appeals have been decided by order dated 13-11-2009. The
appellate authority passed order directing for demolition of
unauthorised construction and imposed fine. Extract of the order is
as follows :-
(a) Unauthorised constructions, mentioned in the subject notice of
the Cantonment Board
Meerut be demolished.
(b) Cantonment Board, Meerut to impose a fine of Rs.50,000/- on
the appellant.
Subsequence to the said, notice has been given on 4-1-2010 for
non compliance of the notice against which the petitioner has filed
the present writ petition.
Sri Govind Krishana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has only carried out certain repairs of the walls
and no construction has been made. He further contends that the
construction which has been made and existing are old
construction made by the earlier owner of the property.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
From the reply submitted by the petitioner it is clear that that the
repair is being admitted but the reply does not mention any details
or existence of the repairs. The submission which has been made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the existing
constructions are old constructions done by the earlier owner. The
petitioner has filed copy of the sale deed as Annexure No.1 to the
writ petition. Page 25 of the paper book (internal page no. 5) of
sale deed mention about details of bunglow and the constructed
area which refers to the portion of bungalow no. 202 area 418.06
sq. mtr having covered area 80 sq.yards (=66.89 sq. meters). The
notice showing unauthorised construction given to the petitioner
clearly indicates that the unauthorised constructions which are
referred into the notice dated 3-12-2008 is more than about 100 sq.
yards, and notice clearly states that above constructions are new
constructions. In view of above the submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that all constructions in the notice dated 3-12-
2008 is old construction, is not acceptable. The appellate authority
has recorded a categorical finding that no evidence has been lead
proving that the construction are old and existing for years. There
was a detailed report dated 26-11-2008 about unauthorised
construction which has been re lied by the authorities.
We have no reason to disbelieve the said report so far as
unauthorised construction are concerned. We find no error in the
order passed by the authority concerned.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.1.2010
skv