Raj endra Singh and anot her v. Union of I ndia and anot her

Judgment

( p e r H o n ’ b l e Ju s t i ce Sr i M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i )

1. Appellant s filed Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1866 of 2014, challenging not ices issued by Chief Execut ive Officer, Cant onm ent Board, Ranikhet on 02.06.2014 and 01.08.2014. By t he said not ices, t hey were asked t o rem ove unaut horized const ruct ion, raised by t hem in building No. 102, sit uat e in Deolikhet , Ranikhet , Dist rict Alm ora. The writ pet it ion was dism issed by t he learned Single Judge vide j udgm ent dat ed 16.08.2016, which is im pugned in t his writ pet it ion. Relevant ext ract of t he im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below: - “ 7. For abundant precaut ion, t he Chief Execut ive Officer of t he Cant onm ent Board has clearly st at ed t hat t he not ice which was earlier given under Sect ion 256 of t he Cant onm ent s Act , 1924 should now be read as not ice given under Sect ion 320 of t he Cant onm ent s Act , 2006. As such t here is no anom aly, m uch less any t echnical flaw in t he not ices as alleged by t he learned Senior Counsel for t he pet it ioners.

8. Anot her argum ent of t he learned Senior Counsel for t he pet it ioners is t hat under t he Cant onm ent s Act , 1924, not ice under Sect ion 256 of t he old Act can only be given aft er a resolut ion of t he Board wher eas under t he new Cant onm ent s Act , 2006 not ice has t o be given only by t he Chief Execut ive Officer. 1 This cont ent ion of t he pet it ioners appears t o be 9. incorrect inasm uch as language of Sect ion 320 of t he Cant onm ent s Act , 2006 clearly st at es t hat a not ice under Sect ion 320 can be given by t he Board as well as by t he Chief Execut ive Officer. Therefore, t here is absolut ely no anom aly in t he orders dat ed 02.06.2014 and 01.08.2014.

10. The writ pet it ions have no m erit and are hereby dism issed. I nt erim order dat ed 12.08.2014 st ands vacat ed. Respondent aut horit ies are hereby direct ed t o t ake an act ion against t he pet it ioners in accordance wit h law.”

2. Appellant s have challenged t he said j udgm ent m ainly on t he ground t hat t he not ices were issued in exercise of power under Sect ion 256 of Cant onm ent s Act , 1924, while Sect ion 256 was not exist ing in t he st at ut e book aft er repeal of Cant onm ent s Act , 1924.

3. Learned counsel appearing for Cant onm ent Board has drawn our at t ent ion t o t he im pugned not ice. I n para 2 t hereof, t here is reference t o Sect ion 320 of Cant onm ent s Act , 2006, which has replaced t he Cant onm ent s Act , 1924. Sect ion 320 of 2006 Act enables t he Board, Civil Area Com m it t ee or t he Chief Execut ive Officer of a Cant onm ent t o t ake necessary act ion, in t he event of non- com pliance of t he t erm s of any not ice, order or requisit ion, issued t o any person under t he Act .

4. Since t he power which was available under Sect ion 256 of Cant onm ent s Act , 1924 is st ill available under Sect ion 320 of 2006 Act , and t here is reference t o Sect ion 320 of Act No. 41 of 2006, t herefore, first ground of challenge, raised on behalf of t he appellant s is wit hout any subst ance.

5. Learned counsel for t he appellant s t hen subm it s t hat im pugned not ices were issued by Chief Execut ive 2 Officer of t he Cant onm ent Board while as per law, t he com pet ent aut horit y t o issue t he not ice is t he Board. Learned Single Judge has dealt wit h t his cont ent ion in para 9 of t he im pugned j udgm ent .

6. Sect ion 320 of Act No. 41 of 2006 provides t hat in t he event of non- com pliance wit h t he t erm s of any not ice, order or requisit ion m ade under t he Act , Rule or Bye- law, t he Board, Civil Area Com m it t ee or t he Chief Execut ive Officer m ay t ake such act ion, as m ay be necessary, aft er giving not ice in writ ing t o a person against whom any act ion is proposed t o be t aken. Thus, we concur wit h t he view t aken by learned Single Judge t hat Chief Execut ive Officer is also com pet ent t o issue not ice before t aking any act ion under Sect ion 320 of Act No. 41 of 2006.

7. From perusal of t he record, it is revealed t hat t he propert y in quest ion was originally leased out by t he Secret ary of St at e for I ndia in Council in favour of one Mr. Khuda Bux on 21.06.1915 and t hereaft er, one Mr. Mandan Mohan Khulbe becam e lessee of t he aforesaid propert y. I t is also revealed from perusal of t he record t hat writ pet it ioners/ appellant s, by t respassing upon t he aforesaid propert y unaut horizedly raised const ruct ion, for which, dem olit ion not ices were issued t o t hem from t im e t o t im e since 19.08.2000.

8. Mr. Madan Mohan Khulbe, t he lessee, also filed Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 1683 of 2009, raising t he issue illegal const ruct ion, raised pet it ioners/ appellant s over t he propert y in quest ion. The said writ pet it ion was disposed of vide order dat ed 3

13.05.2014 by recording t he st at em ent m ade by learned counsel appearing for t he Cant onm ent Board t hat decision on t he quest ion of renewal of lease shall t aken wit hin ninet y t he illegal/ unaut horized const ruct ion, if found t o be raised on t he propert y in quest ion, shall also be appropriat ely dealt wit h. The im pugned not ices appear t o have been issued t o t he writ pet it ioners/ appellant s in t erm s of t he st at em ent m ade on behalf of Cant onm ent Board before Writ Court .

9. Mr. A.D. Tripat hi, learned counsel appearing for t he int ervener, subm it s t hat due t o unaut horized const ruct ion forcibly raised by writ pet it ioners/ appellant s over t he propert y in quest ion, t he com pet ent aut horit y is not considering int ervener ’s prayer renewal of t he lease. He subm it s t hat what ever st ruct ure has been raised by t he appellant s over t he propert y in quest ion is wit hout any aut horit y of law as neit her t he lease- holder nor t he owner of t he propert y has perm it t ed t he appellant s t o raise such st ruct ures.

10. When asked about t he aut horit y under which appellant s had raised const ruct ion over t he propert y in quest ion, learned counsel for t he appellant s could not show any docum ent t o show t hat appellant had any right , t it le or int erest over t he propert y in quest ion.

11. Thus, t he only inference which could be gat hered is t hat pet it ioners were t respassers over t he propert y in quest ion who have failed t o rem ove t heir unaut horized const ruct ion, even aft er repeat ed not ices given t o t hem by t he com pet ent aut horit y. 4

12. Learned Single Judge has given valid reasons for dism issing t he writ pet it ion, wherein writ pet it ioners challenged t he not ices issued t o t hem by Cant onm ent Board. Thus, any j udgm ent would not be warrant ed. int erference wit h t he im pugned I n such view of t he m at t er, t he Special Appeal fails

13. and is dism issed. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. __________________________ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 2 nd May, 2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2 c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A5 42D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF 5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 5