The court directed the authorities to issue the requisite construction permissions within 30 days, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed in the judgement
The court directed the authorities to issue the requisite construction permissions within 30 days, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed in the judgement. The petitions have been listed for compliance on Oct 23.The defence authorities had opposed the proposed construction, contending that the land remained defence property and could be required in the future for military purposes, including married accommodation for officers. The two plots are held under leases valid until Nov 30, 2033. The judgement, however, makes it clear that the permission to construct does not create any right to a renewal of the leases after 2033. The authorities had relied, among other things, on a subsequent audit objection concerning Plot 5-D.
Court questions differential treatment The court also took note of the petitioners’ contention that similarly placed leaseholders within the same larger property had previously been permitted to construct buildings, even though their leases were due to expire on the same date.
However, when unequal treatment is alleged, the State must demonstrate a “rational and intelligible basis” for the distinction. Pune : The Bombay High Court has directed the defence estates and Southern Command authorities to allow construction of residential bungalows on two long-term leasehold plots in Pune Cantonment, ruling that a general apprehension that the defence ministry may require the land in future cannot override the contractual and statutory rights of existing leaseholders. The high court, however, observed that no concrete project, sanctioned plan, or identified commencement date had been placed before it to establish an immediate requirement for these specific plots. The court held that a mere possibility of future defence use could not be treated as an immediate operational necessity so as to deny construction during the subsistence of a valid lease. The court noted that the proposed construction was residential and that the authorities had not identified any provision in the subsisting leases or applicable building regulations that prohibited such construction. The govt will remain free to decide whether to renew them. The authorities failed to satisfactorily explain this differential treatment, the court observed. It clarified that a previous permission granted erroneously does not automatically confer a right to another person. The court found that this audit objection did not, by itself, provide an adequate basis for denying construction permission to the present petitioners.