Sunil Prakash Gupta vs Union Of India & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2019, passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition no.

3855 (M/S) of 2019, Sunil Prakash Gupta Vs Union of India and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine.

2) The petitioner (appellant herein) filed the aforementioned writ petition with the following prayers:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to expeditiously decide the appeal under Section 57 of the

Cantonment Act, 2006 registered as diary no. 2542 of 2019, pending before Secretary Defence, Govt. of India contained as Annexure no. 13 to this

writ petition.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to return the property Fair View,

Sisters Bazar, Landaur Cantt., Mussoorie, District Dehradun to the petitioner.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 3 not to take any further steps in terms of demolition order

dated 06.02.2018, passed by respondent no. 3 during the pendency of the statutory appeal.

3) Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that he may be permitted to withdraw relief (b) and (ii) made in

the prayer clause of the writ petition. However, he would submit that this Court may consider the special appeal only in regard to relief (a) made in the

prayer clause of the writ petition.

4) The case of the petitioner / appellant, in brief, is that the property known as Fair View, Survey no. 95, Landour Cantt. Mussoorie is recorded in the

Cantonment Board, Landour Cantt. Mussoorie in the name of the Christian and Missionary Alliance of India Missions, Akola, Berar (as a B-3 old

grant). It is averred that for the purpose of proper care and management of the property Sy. No. 95, Fair View Estate, the Alliance Ministries

executed a general Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner / appellant. However, no such general Power of Attorney is annexed with the writ

petition or with the appeal. Petitioner / appellant claim himself to be the caretaker and occupant of the said property since 1986. It is contended that a

show cause notice dated 22.06.2016 was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Landour to the Christian and Missionary Alliance

of India Missions, Akola, Berar and to Mr. Anil Prakash and Mr. Inder Prakash. None of the persons, whom the notice was issued filed any objection

or appeal. Thereafter, pursuant to Cantonment Board Resolution No. 17 dated 09.01.2018, a demolition notice dated 06.02.2018, under Section 248 (1)

of the Cantonments Act, 2006 was served upon the petitioner/appellant and two others.

5) The petitioner / appellant challenged the demolition notice dated 06.02.2018 in appeal, being Appeal no. 14 of 2018, Sunil Prakash Gupta Vs

Cantonment Board, Landour before the General Officer, Commanding in Chief, Central Command. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner /

appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court, being WPMS no. 1685 of 2018, Sunil Prakash Gupta Vs Cantonment Board, Landour and others.

Learned Single Judge vide its order dated 01.06.2018 dismissed the writ petition in limine.

6) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner / appellant filed Special Appeal no. 424 of 2018. The Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated

14.06.2018 was pleased to dispose of the special appeal with the observations that the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal of the petitioner /

appellant and till the decision of the appeal, the demolition order shall remain stayed. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority decided the appeal vide

order dated 18.09.2019.

7) Still feeling aggrieved, the petitioner / appellant preferred a review under Section 57 of the Cantonment Act, 2006. It is contended that the review

filed by the petitioner / appellant is pending before the respondent no. 1, who has not taken any decision on said review as yet. It is further contended

that, in the meantime, demolition of the property in question was carried out to some extent and possession has been taken by the Cantonment Board

over the disputed property. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred WPMS no. 3855 of 2019 before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide its

judgment and order dated 18.12.2019 dismissed the writ petition in limine.

8) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents brought on record.

9) Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in

dismissing the writ petition in limine as the respondent no. 1 cannot be permitted to sit over the review application for an indefinite period. He would

further submit that since the statutory review application is pending before respondent no. 1, the learned Single Judge ought to have issued direction to

the respondent no. 1 so that respondent no. 1 may decide the review application within specific period.

10) On the other hand, Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 4 would submit that the

appellant / petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition. He would further submit that the Appellate Authority has observed in its order

that the appellant / petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the appeal.

11) Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 would submit that the demolition committee has issued the order of

demolition and subsequently, in view of the order of demolition committee, the demolition of the property in question to some extent has already been

carried out. He would further submit that the appellant / petitioner has no locus standi to initiate the legal proceedings or to maintain the review

application.

12) In view of the statement made by learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition be dismissed in regard to the

relief (b) and (ii) and only his innocuous prayer be considered to direct the authority concerned to decide the review under Section 57 of the

Cantonment Act, we feel that the innocuous prayer made by learned Senior Counsel seeking direction to the authority concerned to decide the review

under Section 57 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, within a stipulated time period is worth accepting. Thus, we set aside the order under challenge to that

extent. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in regard to relief (b) and (ii) of the writ petition.

13) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

appellant, we dispose of the special appeal with the direction to respondent no. 1 to decide the review under Section 57 of the Cantonment Act, 2006,

within a period of eight week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not passed any order staying the

demolition or action taken pursuant to the order passed by the authorities concerned.

14) In view of the above, special appeal stands disposed of. (Stay Application CLMA no. 16970 of 2019 also stands disposed of).