CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT versus NARAINDAS & ANR.

CANTONMENT BOARD, MEERUT versus NARAINDAS & ANR.

Section 187 of the Cantonments Act is the applicable provision for dealing with the kiosk encroaching upon the drain belonging to the Cantonment Board. Since the act of encroachment occurred within thirty years and was not covered by the twelve-month limitation under section 185, the Board was competent to demand...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Cantonment Board, Meerut; Respondent: Naraindas; Respondent: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 April 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated February 2, 1965, of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2097 of 1958
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decree of the High Court set aside; decree of the first appellate court restored.
Legal Topics
Cantonments Act, Building Regulations, Encroachment, Remedies
Local Government Law Municipal Law Cantonments Act Building Regulations Encroachment Remedies

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cantonment Board, Meerut

Appellant

Naraindas

Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated February 2, 1965, of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2097 of 1958

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices issued are governed by section 185(1) or section 187(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924
  2. 2 Whether the Cantonment Board is competent to order removal of a kiosk constructed without permission over a drain belonging to the Board

Ratio Decidendi

Section 187 of the Cantonments Act is the applicable provision for dealing with the kiosk encroaching upon the drain belonging to the Cantonment Board. Since the act of encroachment occurred within thirty years and was not covered by the twelve-month limitation under section 185, the Board was competent to demand removal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decree of the High Court set aside; decree of the first appellate court restored.

Orders

  • The appellant shall pay the costs of the respondent in any event, as directed at the time of granting special leave.