Sunita Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.2.2015 passed on the recall application filed by the petitioner for recall of the order of the appellate authority passed under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. Simultaneously, the order dated 14.12.2006 dismissing the appeal as also the communication dated 27.3.2002 sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Meerut are also under challenge. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners claim to be occupiers and holders of Power of Attorney from the lease holder of Bungalow No. 304, Brook Street, Meerut Cantt., Meerut. It appears that they had raised certain constructions on account of which a show cause notice dated 17.1.2001 under proviso to sub -section (1) of Section 5 -B of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was issued to them. Reply was submitted on 2.2.2001. It appears that the composition building plan was submitted by the petitioners for compounding of the constructions which has been termed as unauthorised. On the said plan, serious objections have been raised by the Defence Estate Officer whose report has been obtained under Section 181(3) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The Board vide resolution No. 488 dated 11.3.2002 had rejected the composition plan. The information of the decision of the Board has been given vide communication dated 27.3.2002 sent by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Meerut. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 against rejection of the composition plan vide resolution No. 488 dated 11.3.2002 by the Cantonment Board. The grounds taken in the appeal were that the objections raised by the Defence Estate Officer, Meerut Circle on the composition plan were totally baseless and with mala fide intentions. The site in question was both residential as well as commercial and there has been no change whatsoever from the original plan of the building. The commercial activities were going on at the site in question and no written consent was required for using the same for the commercial purposes. Even if there was a change of purpose, it ought to have been regularised by compounding of the plan. There was no gross violation of the terms and conditions of the lease.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal, it appears that an application dated 16th August, 2003 was filed before the Principal Director, Defence Estate Central Command with the prayer to issue an interim order during pendency of the appeal. It was stated therein that the Defence Estate Officer who gave opinion earlier, as an appellate authority at the relevant point of time, had deliberately not considered the purpose for which the bungalow was being used as per the G.L.R. entries. He was highly prejudiced and inimical to the petitioner and had raised objections to the compounding plan on irrelevant grounds.;