- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. The only aspect on which there is no issue in this writ peti tion is the fact that there was an indenture of 11 December, 1968 by which the Military Estate Officer, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow Cantonment, had granted on behalf of the leassor (the President of India) to demise the plot of land to be used by the seven persons mentioned in the deed for the pur pose of building "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room. "
(2.) THE lease is in reference to military land in Kanpur on the bank of the Ganges within the Cantonment area. It appears that the seven persons who were favoured with the lease by the Military Estate Officer spread more than was necessary beyond the indication in the lease deed. If they had remained within the confines of the indenture and not spread beyond the "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room, " there would not have been any conflict between them, the military authority and the Cantonment Board or the Military Estate Officer concerned. In the writ petition it is acknow ledged that the constructions were made unauthorized by the petitioners. The petitioners received a caution from the respondents and also a warning for the removal of the unauthorised constructions.
(3.) THE Court has heard learned coun sel for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Tandon, and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A. K. Sinha. THE respondents do not recognise the status of the petitioners to do as they please and anything with the land under lease. THE contention of the respon dents is that the lease confines itself to the grant in favour of the seven persons so named and for the specific purpose for which it has been granted. Legally, counsel for the respondents acknowledges that if the constructions had been confined as are mentioned in the indenture, then the respondents would acknowledge that the lease may be enjoyed and retained for the period of its duration. Beyond this, they say, they are not ready to acknowledge any other person away from those mentioned in the indenture. Counsel for the respondents desired this aspect of his submission to be noted. In effect, the status of the petitioners is not acknowledged. Notwithstanding the submission on behalf of the petitioners or the respondents, the Court views the situation thus:;