Supreme Court Allows Cantonment Board's Appeal in Building Sanction Dispute; Sets Aside High Court Order Granting Further Time for Construction. Extension of time granted after lapse of sanction and after imposition of stricter building bye-laws held invalid under Sections 181, 181-A, 183 of Cantonments Act, 1924; doctrine of estoppel rejected.

Writ petition challenging GOC-in-Chief's orders suspending extension and ordering demolition, followed by special leave petition before Supreme Court against High Court order setting aside GOC orders and granting further time for construction.

In the High Court, the respondent builder sought quashing of GOC-in-Chief's orders dated 14.2.1987 and 14.3.1987 and permission to complete construction. In the Supreme Court, the appellant Cantonment Board sought setting aside of High Court order and restoration of GOC-in-Chief's orders or appropriate relief.

The GOC-in-Chief suspended the Executive Officer's extension order and directed demolition of the partly constructed building; the builder filed writ petition challenging these orders.

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the GOC-in-Chief's orders dated 14.2.1987 and 14.3.1987, and granted further time to complete construction according to the initially sanctioned plan. This was appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.

Whether the building sanction dated 2.7.1981 lapsed due to non-completion within prescribed time and lack of timely extension application. Whether the Executive Officer had jurisdiction to grant extension of time on 2.5.1986 after the sanction had lapsed and after restrictive bye-laws under Section 181-A were imposed. Whether the GOC-in-Chief validly exercised powers under Section 52 to suspend the Executive Officer's extension order and order demolition. Whether the doctrine of estoppel could be invoked against the Cantonment Board to validate the extension.

Appellants contended that the building sanction had lapsed, the extension granted by the Executive Officer was invalid because it was made after lapse and after restrictive bye-laws came into force, and the GOC-in-Chief's intervention under Section 52 was lawful. Respondents argued that the extension was valid and the High Court correctly granted further time; however, their senior counsel conceded that the doctrine of estoppel invoked by the High Court could not be supported.

A building sanction under the Cantonments Act, 1924 lapses if construction is not begun within one year, and an extension of time cannot be granted after the sanction has lapsed. Subsequent building bye-laws imposing restrictions on FAR and number of storeys must be considered, and a lapsed sanction cannot be revalidated contrary to current bye-laws. The doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked to validate an invalid extension of a lapsed sanction by a statutory authority. The GOC-in-Chief has supervisory power under Section 52 to suspend and annul invalid decisions of the Board or its delegate.

The building was intended to be used for commercial residential purposes, it was to be an RCC framed structure and to consist of ground and five upper stories (i.e. Stilt + six upper stories); the nature of soil was 'hard rock'; the construction work was to be commenced within one year of the sanction i.e. before 6.7.1982; and was to be completed within 12 months from the date of commencement of the work. On 24.5.1984, an engineer of the Cantonment Board inspected the site and submitted a report that no erection work of the building had been commenced till then; the owner had not made any application for extension of time and the sanction had lapsed. Shri F.S.Nariman, learned senior counsel for the respondents, frankly conceded that he could not support the High Court's order on that ground. We need not, therefore, consider the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel which is a clearly untenable plea in the present case.

On 2.7.1981, the Cantonment Board granted building sanction under Section 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, effective 6.7.1981, for a building with ground plus five upper stories at House No.2, Sholapur Bazar Road, Pune. The conditions required commencement by 6.7.1982 and completion within 12 months of commencement. By letter dated 3.7.1982, the builder intimated commencement of work. Construction was not completed by 3.7.1983, and no extension was sought before expiry. On 24.9.1983, the builder applied for extension of time. On 24.5.1984, a Cantonment Engineer reported that no erection work had commenced and the sanction had lapsed. On 9.9.1985, the builder made a second application for extension. Meanwhile, building bye-laws were amended on 24.12.1982 and 26.3.1984 imposing restrictions on FAR and storeys. By order dated 2.5.1986, the Cantonment Executive Officer granted extension for one year. On 2.1.1987, the GOC-in-Chief suspended the Executive Officer's order under Section 52(1)(b). After hearing, the GOC-in-Chief made the suspension absolute on 14.2.1987 and ordered demolition on 14.3.1987. The builder filed Writ Petition in Bombay High Court on 27.3.1987. The High Court allowed the writ, set aside the GOC-in-Chief's orders, and granted further time to complete construction. The Cantonment Board and GOC-in-Chief filed special leave petition in Supreme Court, which was decided on 9.8.1996.

• Cantonments Act, 1924: Section 52, Section 180-A, Section 181, Section 181-A, Section 183, Section 183-A