The Madras High Court has allowed appeals by the Cantonment Board, St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram, and the Defence Ministry challenging a single Judge's order directing the authorities to permit conversion of a piece of land, leased by the Defence Ministry to a person, from residential to commercial purpose.
U. Venkatesh was the lessee of 19,200 sq.feet of land in St. Thomas Mount-cum-Pallavaram Cantonment and the lease granted was only for residential use and not for commercial purpose. The conversion was not granted by the Defence Ministry. He filed petitions praying for permission to use the leasehold right for commercial purpose for 90 years by fixing and collecting annual rent and premium of the year 1997 and a direction to the Executive Officer, Cantonment Office, to sanction the building plan in his favour. He also challenged the rejection of his request for conversion of land use. By a common order the single Judge allowed the petitions.
As against the orders, the present appeals were filed. The appellants said the request for change of land use having been rejected and without obtaining the Defence Ministry's permission, approval of the building plan was sought for, which was also returned. The petitioner ought not to have commenced construction on the land for commercial purpose.
M.Ravindran, Additional Solicitor-General, submitted that the petitioner was a lessee of the land, owned by the Defence Ministry, and he was bound by the lease deed which contained a clause to use the land only for residential and not for commercial purpose.
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the single Judge's order, a Division Bench comprising Justices Elipe Dharma Rao and N.Paul Vasanthakumar said the petitioner's conduct in approaching the court and obtaining an interim order without disclosing the non-grant of permission for using the land for commercial purpose and completing the building construction was illegal. The petitioner was bound by the lease agreement.
The Bench said the Supreme Court in a decision had held that buildings constructed unauthorisedly were bound to be demolished. In this case, the petitioner admittedly constructed the building without the Defence Ministry's permission regarding change of land use and also without obtaining building plan approval from the Estate Officer.
