The case revolves around the construction of a high-rise building by Kukreja Infrastructure in proximity to Station HQ Kamptee, a defense establishment. The petitioners, Station HQ, challenged the construction for lack of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from military authorities, citing security concerns under the Works of Defence Act, 1903. Despite the petitioner’s insistence on applying NOC guidelines from 2011 and its amendments, the court found that the petition was filed at a belated stage, after the building was already complete. The court ruled in favor of the respondent, Kukreja Infrastructure, dismissing the petition due to a lack of statutory backing for the petitioner’s claims.

1. Background of the Case

The petitioner, Station HQ Kamptee, sought a writ against Kukreja Infrastructure, alleging that the construction of a high-rise building was illegal without an NOC from the military authority. The building was located near the Station HQ, raising concerns about potential security risks.

2. Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner invoked the Works of Defence Act, 1903, and Ministry of Defence guidelines, stating that construction close to a defense establishment should require an NOC. The petitioner emphasized that the building, exceeding permissible height limits, posed a security threat due to its proximity to the defense area.

3. Respondent's Stand

Kukreja Infrastructure countered by pointing out that the construction had been approved by the local planning authorities. They also highlighted that the petitioner’s objections were raised after the building’s completion, making the claims ineffective at this stage.

4. Court's Analysis

The court examined the guidelines, including the 2011 and 2015 amendments, which allowed for the imposition of restrictions on construction near defense establishments. However, the court noted that the petitioner failed to challenge the construction in a timely manner. Furthermore, it was observed that the guidelines were not retrospective in nature and did not support the petitioner's demand for demolition or height reduction of the building.

5. Judgment and Dismissal

The court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims. It held that since the construction was already completed and approved by local authorities, there was no basis for retrospective application of the defense-related guidelines. The petition was dismissed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Works of Defence Act, 1903: This act provides for imposing restrictions on the use and enjoyment of land near defense establishments to safeguard national security.
• Article 300A of the Indian Constitution: The right to property, stating that deprivation of property can only happen under the authority of law.
• Guidelines by the Ministry of Defence (2011, 2015 amendments): Guidelines concerning the issuance of NOCs for construction near defense establishments were discussed, along with their application and limitations.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court held that when central or state legislation, such as the Works of Defence Act, occupies the field, any restrictions on land use near defense establishments must follow statutory procedures. The court emphasized that executive instructions or circulars cannot supersede legislative authority without following due process. Since the guidelines in question were not retrospective and the construction was complete, the court found no legal basis to support the petitioner’s claims.

Subjects:

Defense Establishment Security, Civilian Construction, NOC Guidelines, Property Law

Work of Defence Act, 1903, NOC, Property Rights, Construction Law, Military Security, High-rise Building, Article 300A