The Bombay High Court has allowed two writ petitions concerning residential construction on leased defence land in Pune Cantonment, holding that a future apprehension about resumption of the land could not by itself defeat rights available under a subsisting lease.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad pronounced the judgment on September 7, 2026.
Background of the Case
The first petition, Writ Petition No. 9218 of 2025, was filed by Nikhil Vithal Jhaveri and Kirti V. Jhaveri. The second, Writ Petition No. 9220 of 2025, was filed by Mamta Jain. Both matters concerned plots forming part of a larger 3.10-acre parcel in Pune Cantonment.
The original lease dates back to 1944. The lease was subsequently renewed, with the present term continuing until November 30, 2033. The petitioners sought permission to construct residential houses on their respective plots.
The applications were referred to the Defence authorities under Section 238 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. That provision requires the Cantonment Board to ascertain whether the Government has any objection before sanctioning construction on land under the management of the Defence Estates Officer.
The Defence authorities objected to the proposed construction, citing the defence character of the land, its possible future requirement and the consequences of construction before the lease expires in 2033. The Pune Cantonment Board subsequently rejected the applications.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined whether the authorities had exercised their statutory power on relevant and legally sustainable grounds. It noted that the petitioners were seeking residential construction and that no provision in the subsisting lease or applicable building regulations had been shown to prohibit such construction for personal residential use.
The Bench 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.”
The Court also took note of the petitioners’ undertakings that the houses would remain for personal residential use, would not be converted into commercial properties or high-rise developments, and would not create third-party rights.
It further noted that the Government remained free to decide on renewal or resumption of the land after the existing lease period in accordance with the law and policy applicable at that time.
The Bench also found that the authorities had not produced a concrete project, sanctioned plan or identified commencement date showing an immediate defence requirement for the particular plots.
Decision
The High Court held that the rejection orders could not be sustained and quashed them. Both writ petitions were allowed in terms of the petitioners’ prayers.
The Court directed the respondents to issue the appropriate construction permissions after the petitioners complied with the specified undertakings and additional conditions. The petitioners were barred from creating direct or indirect rights in favour of builders, developers or promoters. Their individual affidavits were to be submitted within 15 days, after which the permissions were to be issued within 30 days.
The Rule was made absolute in those terms.
