Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Cantonment Board’s Demolition Notices: Cantonment Board, Meerut & Anr. vs. Afzal (23 April 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 23 April 2019
Citation: Not Available in the source.
Judges: R. Banumathi, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.
Can a local authority issue demolition notices without properly considering objections? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a batch of appeals concerning the Cantonment Board of Meerut. The Court upheld the Allahabad High Court’s decision to quash demolition notices issued under the Cantonments Act, 1924, due to procedural lapses. The bench comprised Justices R. Banumathi and R. Subhash Reddy, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case involves a series of appeals filed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut, against a common order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court had quashed notices issued by the Cantonment Board under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, to stop alleged unauthorized constructions and for their demolition. The respondents, who were the original petitioners before the High Court, were served these notices for allegedly carrying out constructions without prior permission within the cantonment area.

The Cantonment Board initiated proceedings against the respondents under Sections 184 and 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, alleging unauthorized constructions. The Executive Officer issued show cause notices, followed by notices for demolition. Aggrieved, the respondents filed appeals, which were dismissed by the appellate authority. The High Court, while not accepting all arguments of the respondents, quashed the orders of the primary and appellate authorities.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents challenged the notices issued under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the appellate orders before the High Court. They argued that the Executive Officer lacked the authority to issue such notices and that the notices were time-barred as they were not issued within 12 months of the alleged constructions. They also contended that their replies to the show cause notices were not considered, and the appellate authority passed stereo-typed orders without providing a hearing. The High Court rejected the arguments regarding jurisdiction and limitation but found merit in the procedural lapses, specifically the failure to consider the replies and the perfunctory nature of the appellate orders.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the Cantonments Act, 1924, and its successor, the Cantonments Act, 2006. The 1924 Act governed the administration of cantonments until it was repealed by the 2006 Act, which came into force on 18.12.2006. The notices in question were issued under Section 185 of the 1924 Act, which deals with the power to order the demolition of unauthorized constructions. The relevant sections are:

• Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924: This section empowers the authorities to issue notices for stopping unauthorized constructions and for their demolition.
• Section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924: This section provides for a statutory appeal against orders passed under the Act.
• Section 360 of the Cantonments Act, 2006: This section repeals the Cantonments Act, 1924.

Arguments

The appellants, the Cantonment Board, argued that they had the authority to order the demolition of unauthorized constructions. They contended that the respondents had not appeared before the appellate authority despite being given opportunities. They also submitted that the primary authority had issued the notice under Section 185 of the 1924 Act after giving a show cause notice. The appellants claimed that the High Court erred in finding that no opportunity was given to the respondents.

The respondents argued that neither the primary nor the appellate authority had considered their objections. They claimed that the Cantonment Executive Officer did not refer to their objections in the demolition notices. They also argued that the appellate authority did not provide a hearing and passed stereo-typed orders. Further, they contended that the Cantonment Executive Officer lacked valid delegation to issue the impugned notices.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in quashing the demolition notices and appellate orders due to procedural irregularities.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific cases or books. However, it refers to the following legal provisions:

• Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924: This section deals with the power to order the demolition of unauthorized constructions.
• Section 274 of the Cantonments Act, 1924: This section provides for a statutory appeal against orders passed under the Act.
• Section 360 of the Cantonments Act, 2006: This section repeals the Cantonments Act, 1924.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the notices issued under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the orders of the appellate authority. The Court noted that the show cause notice issued to Afzal on 22.08.2006 was not even referred to in the final notice issued on 02.09.2006. The Court emphasized that the primary authority should have referred to the show cause notice and any objections while issuing the final notice. The Court also observed that the appellate authority relied on a survey report dated 10.08.2006, which was not furnished to the respondents.

The Court stated that the notices were issued mechanically and in a casual manner. The Court also noted that the appellate authority had passed stereo-typed orders without giving any opportunity for a hearing.

The Court held that while it is always open to the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing fresh show cause notices, the reasons recorded by the High Court for quashing the notices were valid. The Court directed that any fresh action should be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006, and that a copy of the Inspection Report should be furnished to the respondents.

“Having issued the show cause notice, the primary authority ought to have referred to such notice and objections, if any, to such notice, while issuing the final notice on 02.09.2006.”

“It is clear that notices are issued mechanically and in a casual manner.”

“While issuing fresh show cause notice, the appellant shall furnish copy of the Inspection Report to the respondents and afford sufficient opportunity to each of the respondents and pass order in accordance with law.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the procedural lapses in the issuance of demolition notices by the Cantonment Board. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, which require that individuals be given a fair opportunity to be heard and that their objections be properly considered. The Court was critical of the mechanical and casual manner in which the notices were issued, as well as the failure of the appellate authority to provide a proper hearing.

Key Takeaways

• Local authorities must follow due process while issuing demolition notices.
• Objections raised by individuals must be properly considered.
• Appellate authorities must provide a fair hearing.
• Fresh proceedings must adhere to the Cantonments Act, 2006.
• Inspection reports must be furnished to the concerned parties.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that any fresh proceedings must be initiated under the Cantonments Act, 2006. The Court also directed that a copy of the Inspection Report must be furnished to the respondents and that they must be given a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to the principles of natural justice in administrative actions. It clarifies that authorities cannot issue demolition notices without properly considering objections and providing a fair hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the need for local authorities to act fairly and transparently. The Court’s emphasis on procedural compliance ensures that individuals are not subjected to arbitrary actions. The judgment serves as a reminder that even when dealing with unauthorized constructions, authorities must follow the law and provide a fair opportunity for individuals to be heard.