CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANR.versusMOHANLAL AND ANR.

                              CANTONMENT BOARD AND ANR.                                       A
                                         v.
                                  MOHANLAL AND ANR.

                                        JANUARY 2, 1996

                        [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]                                B

                 Cantonment Act, 1924 :

    ,.,,         S. 85, 184, 185, 256--{Jnauthorised construction-Demolition of-issue
           of notices-independent enquiry-l{eld not necessary-Action of canton-
           men! Board held justified and not violative of principles of natural justice.
                                                                                              c
                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1470ofl981.

                From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.79 of the Madhya Pradesh
           High Court in Misc. P. No. 902 of 1975.
                                                                                              D
    ~
                 P.N. Lekhi and M.K. Garg for the Appellants.
~
                O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, Vivek Sharma, Ashok Sudan
           and Ms. Nanita Sharma for the Respondents.

                 The following Order of the Court was delivered :                             E
                  This appeal by special leave arises from the orderof the Division Bench
           of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 2090175 passed on
           November 5, 1979, filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The admitted
           facts are that the appellant had issued a notice on March 27, 1993 under Sec-
           tion 85 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (for short, 'the Act') to the respondent for   F
           demolition of the construction made in the property now in controversy. _The
           !st respondent had received the notice on May 2, 1973, but he carried out
           further construction. However, notice under Section 256 was issued on Janu-
'
;
           ary 3, 1974 and sec?nd notice ultimately was issued for den101ition on Sep-
           tember 13, 1974 under Section 185. The !st respondent had submitted his re-
                                                                                              G
     ..    ply on October 30, 1974. The area committee on December 7, 1974, passed
           resolution after considering the representation made by the !st respondent to
           give 15 days time for compliance of the notice dated March 27, 1973 and
           September 13, 1974 and in case he does not comply with the same it further
           resolved to have the structure demolished through the agency of the Board.
           Calling this action in question the respondent had filed the above writ petition   H
                                                  1
    2                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [ 1996] I S.C.R.
A   in the High Court. The Division Bench has h.eld that though Section 185 read
    with 5th Schedule does not contemplate any enquiry being conducted or rea-
    sons to be recorded, principle of natural justice require that the Board is to
    consider the representation since it is an offence under Section 184 and princi-
    ples of natural justice require that necessary notice and opportunity of hearing
    be given and after consideration of the representation speaking order is re-
    quired to be passed. Since the speaking order had not been passed the action of
    the respondent was in violation of the law.

           The only question in this case is whether the view taken by the High
    Court is good in law. !tis seen that the respondent in his reply had admitted
    that they constructed, as pointed out by the Cantonment Board in its notice
c   dated September 13, 1974, and the previous notice. But he stated that he had
    done it bona fide and as he would not demolish it but requested the authority
    to reconsider the matter and withdraw the notice. In other words, he admitted
    that he had carried on illegal construction without compliance with law. So the
    question is whether enquiry in that behalf is required to be conducted. We are
D   of the considered view that the High Court was not right in its conclusion that
    an independent enquiry requires to be held after the notice was issued and the
    reply thereof was given by the respondent.                                          •

          It is seen that the Cantonment Board is an elected body represented by
    people themselves. When oppo1tunity was given putting on notice of illegal
E   construction made by the respondent, reply thereof was given. The Board had
    considered the representation and was not inclined to accede to the request
    made by the respondent. Accordingly, the resolution passed by the Canton-
    ment Board cannot be faulted as violative of the principles of natural Justice.

           However, Shri Lekhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants stated
F
    that the action taken by the respondent can be condoned provided he complies
    with the law. In view of the stand taken by the appellants, it would be open to
    the respondent to make a representation to the Board which would forward the
    same to General Officer Commanding in Chief at Sagar who would pass an
    appropriate order according to law.
G
           The appeal is accordingly allowed. No Costs.

    G.N.                                                           Appeal aliowed.




                                                                                            ·1