JUDGMENT Hari Swarup, J. - This petition has been filed by B. K. Das as Karta of Messrs. B. K. Das & Sons challenging the validity of the notice issued by the Cantonment Board, Meerut under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act (Act No. II of 1924) directing the demolition of certain constructions made by the petitioner and against the order of the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Central Command,, Lucknow, dated 10-10-1967 dismissing the petitioner's appeals against the demolition notices issued to him by the Cantonment Board under Section 185 of the Act. 2. The facts leadings to the Writ Petition are that the petitioner purchased bunglow no. 170 and 170A situate at Abu Lane (Sadar Bazar) in the Meerut Cantonment area. The petitioner applied for sanctioning a plan for construction of certain buildings on the land appurtenant to the said bungalow No. 170 and 170A. The Cantonment Board sanctioned the plan on 29-5-1965. The General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Central Command, Lucknow, however, suspended the resolution giving the sanction by his order dated 31-8-1966. The resolution was suspended on the basis of a circular letter, issued by the Government, Ministry of Defence dated 16-11-1962. By this letter, the Government of India had intimated the various Cantonment Boards and M. E. Os' in the Eastern Command that the Government was against the sanctioning of plans for building in civil areas within cantonment limits which entailed a change in the use of the site or the sub-division of the site or the erection of additional buildings. The Government of India by this letter informed all Presidents of Cantonment Boards and all M. E. Os' that no sanction be granted for erection of buildings In respect of old grant sites so as to bring about a change in the use of site, sub-division of site or additional buildings on the site without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The G. O. C.-in- Chief, Central Command, Lucknow had also mentioned in the letter dated 31-8 1966 that as the name of B. K. Das, the applicant was not recorded as the owner of the property, his right to construct on the site in question was disputed and his application for sanction of the plan should have been rejected. 3. The Cantonment Board after a reconsideration of the matter maintain. ed its previous resolution sanctioning the plan. 3. The Cantonment Board after a reconsideration of the matter maintain. ed its previous resolution sanctioning the plan. Thereafter on 26-11-1966 the G. O. C.-in-Chief, Central Command again held that the resolution of the Cantonment Board according sanction was in contravention of the order of the Central Government as contained in the aforesaid letter dated 16-11-1962 and acting under the provisions of Section 52 (1) (b) of the Cantonments Act directed that the decision contained in the Cantonment Board, Meerut resolution No. 2 (97) dated 29-5-1965 shall not be carried into effect. The Cantonment Board was also directed to take immediate action under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act for the removal of all constructions that had been made on the basis of the sanction granted by the Board. On the basis of this order, the Cantonment Board issued to the petitioner the impugned notices under Section 185 (2) of the Cantonments Act directing demolition of the constructions. 4. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order under Section 185 of the Act was dismissed by the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Central Command, Lucknow on 10-10-1967. The appellate authority held that the G. O. C.-in-Chief's powers under Section 52 of the Cantonments Act were absolute and unhinged by any provisions under the Act. It also held that the petitioner was planning to construct a building for commercial use while the premises were till then being used for residential purposes. According to the Tribunal, this amounted to a change of purpose and was thus hit by the order of the Central Government as contained in its letter dated 16-11-1962. The appellate authority also held that as the petitioner's name had not been mutated in the register on the basis of the transfer in his favour he could not be held to be a person having the right to make constructions within the meanings of Section 184 (b) of the Cantonments Act. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the powers of the G. O. C.-in-Chief, Headquarters, Central Command under Section 52 were not unlimited but were subject to the powers given under Section 181 of the Act and that the order passed by him on the basis of which notice tinder Section 185 was issued by the Cantonment Board was without authority of law. 6. 6. Section 52 of the Cantonments Act gives power to the Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Central Command, to suspend the resolution of the Board. This power, when read with Section 185 (2) of the Act, makes it clear that the Offices Commanding-in-Chief the Command could, under sub-sec. (1) (b) of Section 52 direct the suspension of the sanction granted by the Cantonment Board under Section 181 of the Act. But this cannot mean that the Officer Commanding-in- Chief the command can pass such an order which has the effect of refusing per- mission on grounds other than those contemplated by Section 181 of the Act. Even the Officer Commanding-in-Chief was bound by provisions of the Act and could refuse the sanction by suspending the resolution on a ground mentioned in Section 181 but on no other ground. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181 of the Cantonments Act and has contended that the Officer Commanding-in-Chief had the power to direct the suspension of the sanction because there was a dispute between the Government and the person applying for sanction about his right to build on the land in dispute. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181 says that the Board may re- fuse to sanction the erection or re-erection of any building when the land on which it is proposed to erect or re-erect the building is not held on a lease from the Government and if the right to build on such land is in.dispute between the person applying for sanction and the Government. The Officer Commanding- in-Chief will, therefore, have a right to suspend the sanction in case it is found that there was a dispute in existence as contemplated by clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that at no stage there had arisen a dispute between the petitioner and the Government, while the contention of the respondents is that the dispute precipitated as soon as the application for sanction was made. (4) of Section 181. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that at no stage there had arisen a dispute between the petitioner and the Government, while the contention of the respondents is that the dispute precipitated as soon as the application for sanction was made. It is no doubt true that a letter issued by the Central Government directing that sanction be not granted without the previous sanction of the Central Government cannot operate as a binding condition on the Cantonment Board because its enforcement will amount to the introduction of a new clause for refusing the sanction under Section 181 of the Act, but by this letter the Central Government must be deemed to dispute the right of any person to make constructions on lands covered by old grants if the constructions were to be of a nature which may bring about a division of holding or a change in the use of the site or the construction of additional buildings. A dispute can be raised by Government only by an executive order and there is no reason for holding that the Government cannot dispute generally the rights of all the holders of lands under old grants by the issue of a general order. In situations where a large number of plots of land are held by people in the Cantonment areas under grants from the Government a general order or notice to the Cantonment Boards of the nature of the letter as issued by the Government of India on 16-11-1962 will be enough to bring to the notice of the Cantonment Boards the dispute as to the right of any person to get the sanction to make constructions without permission of the Central Government. In such a case as soon as any person will file an application before the Cantonment Board for the sanction of a plan which may have the effect of bringing about a change in the use of the site, sub- division of the site or the constructions of additional buildings will precipitate a dispute about the person's right to construct on the land in dispute. The language of clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181 cannot be interpreted only to mean that the right of a person to make construction should by itself be disputed, it will also mean a dispute to make a particular type of construction. The language of clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181 cannot be interpreted only to mean that the right of a person to make construction should by itself be disputed, it will also mean a dispute to make a particular type of construction. Clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181 must be read with reference to the context in which it is used and, if so read, it will have reference only to the plan which is submitted for sanction. If the Government disputes a person's right to make constructions as planned, then there will be a dispute about the right to build as contemplated by clause (b) of sub-sec. (4) of Section 181. But whether in a particular case a dispute does actually arise or not will depend on the nature of the grant under which the applicant was holding the land. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the G. O. Regulation No. 1836 dated 12-9-1836 and has contended that the grant of the petitioner must be presumed to be governed by this Regulation. He has further relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Damodar Das v. The Secretary of State for India in Council, 1938 A.L.J. 1171, for the proposition that the Regulation No. 1836 has the force of law and the petitioner's right will also be controlled by that Regulation. The 6th condition in the said Regulation No. 1836 gives the Government the power of resumption at any time by giving one month's notice and paying the value of such buildings as may have been authorised to be erected. In case the petitioner's rights are controlled by this Regulation of 12-9-1836, then he will have no authority to make any construction on the land in dispute unless authorised by the Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has urged that as the Regulation of 12-9-1836 was never known to the petitioner and the petitioner was given no opportunity to show that his rights under the grant were not controlled under this Regulation, the rights of the parties may not be decided on the basis of the terms of the old grant contained in that Regulation. It was also contend- ed that the terms of this grant, as mentioned in Regulation No. 1836 should be deemed to be notified in so far as it relates to construction for commercial purpose after the addition of Section 43-A in the Cantonment Act by which the civil area was to be managed by a Committee. 8. Section 43-A does not have any affect on the rights of a person to make constructions on land held under a grant from the Government. The committee for civil area is created only for managing the affairs of that area and not for adding to the terms of the grant under which a person may be holding land. The addition of Section 43-A to the Act is therefore, not relevant for the decision of this case. I 9. As the dispute contemplated by Section 181 (4) (b) will, in the circumstances of the case, depend upon the nature of the grant under which the petitioner was holding land it would be fair to give the petitioner give an opportunity to show to the appellate authority the terms of the grant under which he is holding the land. In case the grant in favour of the petitioner places no restriction on his rights to make construction, the circular letter issued by the Central Government on l-.11-1962 will not be deemed to refer to his case and then mere will be no dispute is existence as contemplated by Section 181 (4) (b) of the Cantonments Act, but in case the petitioner is found to be holding land under a grant under which he can make constructions only with the sanction of the Government, the dispute will be deemed to be in existence on the date he filed the application for sanction of the plan as his right to make Constructions Will also be deemed to be disputed by the Government through its letter dated 16.11.1962. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the order of the Deputy Director, Military Lands and Cantonments, Central Command, Lucknow dated 10.10.1967 passed in appeal is set aside and he is directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to show the nature of the grant under which he is holding the land. In the circumstances of inc case, inc parties will bear their own costs.