Cantonment Act, 1924

The plaintiff, Robert Zomawia Street, claimed ownership of a 4.261‑acre bungalow in Shillong Military Cantonment based on a 1980 will of St. John Perry and sought a permanent injunction against the Union of India and military authorities. The defendants contended that the land was an "old grant" under cantonment regula…

The petitioners, manufacturers in Haryana, challenged the constitutional validity of the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000, alleging it violated Article 301 of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 304(b). They argued that the Act imposed an entry tax on goods moving into local areas, effectively a s…

The Secunderabad Cantonment Board levied octroi on goods entering the cantonment and the levy was challenged on the ground that the Board lacked authority under Section 60 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 because no municipality in the State imposed octroi and because there was no machinery for assessment. The High Court up…

The Government of India issued two notices in 2001‑2002 for the resumption of a 3.20‑acre bungalow site in the Allahabad cantonment, invoking powers under Order No.179 of the Governor‑General‑in‑Council dated 12 September 1836. The appellants, Smt. Usha Kapoor and others, contended that they owned the land by virtue of…

The appellant, the estate of the deceased, claimed ownership of a bungalow and the land on which it stood, asserting title derived from a purchase in 1848. The Union of India contended that an 1836 grant vested only the building in the appellant’s ancestors, with the land remaining subject to a right of resumption. The…

The Municipal Corporation of Pune collected octroi duties from the Poona Cantonment under a 1963 schedule of octroi rules, which the respondents challenged as illegal. The Supreme Court examined whether the 1881 Government Notification authorising octroi collection allowed rates and articles to be varied over time, and…

The petitioners challenged the acquisition of 3,470 acres in Naraina village for the "planned development of Delhi" on the grounds that the land was not required for a public purpose and that the substance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had not been properly published in the lo…

The appellant Cantonment Board issued notices under Sections 85, 256 and 185 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 demanding demolition of illegal construction on the respondent’s property. The respondent continued construction, filed a representation, and later filed a writ petition alleging violation of natural justice because…