Apprehensions Of Future Resumption Can’t Defeat Subsisting Lease Rights: Bombay High Court Clears Pune Cantonment Leaseholders' Construction Near Southern Command HQ
|The Bench rejected Army's security objections despite land's proximity to Southern Command Headquarters and its use as a staging area during Operation Sindoor, and held that unutilised plots earmarked for Officers' Married Accommodation cannot justify indefinite denial of permission absent a concrete project.
The Bombay High Court has held that a mere apprehension that permitting residential construction on defence land might complicate its future resumption cannot defeat rights presently subsisting under a valid, renewed lease, thereby clearing the construction of residential bungalows by three sets of civilian leaseholders in Pune Cantonment whose plots lie in close proximity to the Headquarters of Southern Command.
The Court rejected the Army's contention that the proposed construction posed a security risk on account of the land's proximity to Southern Command Headquarters, which had served as a staging area during Operation Sindoor, and equally rejected the submission that the land was required for Officers' Married Accommodation, holding that no concrete, sanctioned project or identified timeline had been placed on record to substantiate either apprehension despite it having been voiced for over two decades.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, “…The Respondents have not pointed out any provision of the subsisting lease, or any applicable building regulation, which prohibits such construction for residential and personal use. The objection of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 proceeds upon a purported apprehension that the construction may make future resumption difficult, or rather impossible. In our view, such an apprehension, however, cannot by itself justify defeating a presently subsisting contractual and statutory right…once a claim of unequal treatment is specifically raised, the State is required to furnish a rational and intelligible basis for the distinction. Mere reference to a subsequent audit objection concerning Plot 5-D does not adequately explain the differential treatment. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the refusal of permission is unwarranted.”.
Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf appeared for the petitioners and Senior Advocate A.S. Khandeparkar appeared for the respondent.
“We are conscious that matters concerning defence land require a degree of institutional deference and that this Court would be slow to interfere. We are examining whether the decision impugned before us has been taken upon relevant material, whether the reasons bear a rational connection with the decision, and whether the Petitioners’ subsisting rights have been denied on the basis of a legally sustainable consideration or apprehensions. On that limited scrutiny, the impugned decision cannot be sustained. The material placed before us does not demonstrate that the proposed construction would interfere with any identified defence activity”, the Bench noted further.
The petitioners hold leasehold rights in plots forming part of a larger parcel of defence land at Queen's Garden, Pune Cantonment, originally leased in 1944 for a term extendable up to ninety years and subsequently sub-divided into four plots.
The current lease term, renewed in 2007, subsists until November 30, 2033. In 2020 and 2022, the respective Petitioners applied for permission to construct residential bungalows on their plots under Section 235 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. The applications remained pending for years before being rejected in March 2025, on the basis that the Government, through the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, had withheld consent, and that an objection had been raised under Section 238(3) of the Cantonments Act.
After sustained correspondence with the Defence Estate Office and representations to the Ministry of Defence over nearly two decades, and following administrative inaction that led one Petitioner to approach the Delhi High Court in 2024, the Pune Cantonment Board issued the impugned rejection communications in March 2025, prompting the present writ petitions.
During the hearing, the petitioners furnished a series of undertakings to the Court, recorded in an order dated January 20, 2026, addressing the Respondents' concerns regarding future use, third-party rights and compensation claims.
The Court found the security-related objections concerning proximity to Southern Command Headquarters and the land's use during Operation Sindoor to be unsubstantiated by any identified defence activity that the proposed construction would interfere with.
“The Respondents have undoubtedly asserted that the land may be required in future for Officers’ Married Accommodation and other defence purposes. However, the record does not disclose any concrete project, sanctioned plan, identified commencement date or immediate utilisation of these particular plots for such purpose. A general assertion of future requirement cannot be treated or accepted as an immediate operational requirement, more so, when such a requirement is being voiced since the last two decades”, it noted further.
The Court held that the petitioners' undertakings, including a waiver of ex-gratia compensation and a bar on creating third-party development rights, adequately addressed the Government's stated concerns regarding eventual resumption of the land.
The Court clarified that the grant of permission would not confer any right to renewal of the lease beyond November 30, 2033, nor entitle the Petitioners to claim any equity on account of the construction, and listed the matter for recording compliance on October 23, 2026.
Cause Title: Nikhil Vithal Jhaveri & Anr. v. Chief Executive Officer, Pune Cantonment Board & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:36510-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, Bhushan Deshmukh, Abinash Pradhan, Garima Agrawal, Yash Dedhia, instructed by Wadia Ghandy & Co.
Respondent: K.J. Presswalla, Tushad Kakalia Sandeep Goyal, instructed by Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe, A.S. Khandeparkar, Senior Advocate, Shehnaz V. Bharucha, Mohamedali M. Chunawalla, Advocates.