CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT V. NARAINDAS AND ANR INSC 106; AIR 1970 SC 105; 1970 SCR 240; 1969 SCC 125

CASE BRIEF Name of the case: CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT V. NARAINDAS AND ANR (1969)

FACTS OF THE CASE: The dispute is between Mohalla Bakri in Lal Kurti Bazar Meerut Cantt. Owner of shop No. 344 and the Cantonment Board for a wooden kiosk constructed on a stone projection in front of the shop. The suit was filed some twenty years after the shop had been built, and while constructing the shop the Cantonment Board had been given permission to build a stone projection over a drain near the road to facilitate access to the shop. The shop owner built a wooden kiosk onto the stone projection to be a pan shop, approximately 18 years before the lawsuit. To be exact, it was built without the permission of the Cantonment Board. A Cantonment Board notice with Section 187, issued on November 9, 1953, called for the removal of the kiosk in seven days. A final notice was issued on December 8, 1953, when the shop owner didn’t comply. The shop owner filed a suit against the demolishing of the kiosk and asked the municipal authorities for a perpetual injunction to restrain the Cantonment Board from carrying out such demolition. The Board has a statutory limit of 18 years to demand the removal of a kiosk, the court decided and observed that the kiosk in question had been in existence for 18 years and therefore could not be removed without due process under Section 185(1). However, the District Judge ruled that the kiosk was built 18 years earlier, but argued that it would be the Board's choice that it needed to be demolished under section 187 (1). However, the District Judge concluded that Section 185(1) did not apply in this case. The High Court agreed with the trial court continuing on further appeal that Section 185(1) applied and prevented the Board from requiring the removal of the kiosk.

ISSUES OF THE CASE: The question here is was the kiosk, which was not erected with permission but has been there for 18 years, removable by the Cantonment Board under the provisions of the Cantonment Act?

HOLDING OF THE CASE: YES, If removed for 18 years, It is the Cantonment Board under Section 187(1) which is empowered to remove unauthorized constructions. Structures not allowed to be constructed cannot receive protection under clause 185(1). It did not exempt the kiosk from removal under the law, as the District Judge rightly ruled, just because it had been around so long.

RATIONALE OF THE CASE: The case deals with the applicability of Sections 185(1) and 187(1) of the Cantonment Act. The shop owner said that the kiosk, in existence for 18 years, is covered by Section 185(1) which provides protection for unauthorized structures after a certain time. However, the Cantonment Board said the kiosk was unauthorized and would be removed under Section 187(1), however, as it was built without its permission. The trial court reversed in part, and held, on the facts presented, that Section 185(1) applies only to unauthorized constructions, regardless of age. But the High Court reinstated the ruling of the trial court, saying Section 185(1) governed the case and the kiosk, being in existence for a long time, was being immunized under Section 185(1). Finally, the rationale turns on whether long-established unauthorized structures are entitled to protection by law, or may still be subject to demolition under regulatory rule, presenting a conflict between statutory provisions and the equitable interests of property owners.