JUDGMENT (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. The only aspect on which there is no issue in this writ petition is the fact that there was an indenture of 11 December, 1968 by which the Military Estate Officer, Lucknow Circle, Lucknow Cantonment, had granted on behalf of the leassor (the President of India) to demise the plot of land to be used by the seven persons mentioned in the deed for the purpose of building "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room." (2.) THE lease is in reference to military land in Kanpur on the bank of the Ganges within the Cantonment area. It appears that the seven persons who were favoured with the lease by the Military Estate Officer spread more than was necessary beyond the indication in the lease deed. If they had remained within the confines of the indenture and not spread beyond the "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room, "there would not have been any conflict between them, the military authority and the Cantonment Board or the Military Estate Officer concerned. (3.) IN the writ petition it is acknowledged that the constructions were made unauthorized by the petitioners. The petitioners received a caution from the respondents and also a warning for the removal of the unauthorised constructions. (4.) THE Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Arun Tandon, and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. A. K. Sinha. THE respondents do not recognise the status of the petitioners to do as they please and anything with the land under lease. THE contention of the respondents is that the lease confines itself to the grant in favour of the seven persons so named and for the specific purpose for which it has been granted. Legally, counsel for the respondents acknowledges that if the constructions had been confined as are mentioned in the indenture, then the respondents would acknowledge that the lease may be enjoyed and retained for the period of its duration. Beyond this, they say, they are not ready to acknowledge any other person away from those mentioned in the indenture. Counsel for the respondents desired this aspect of his submission to be noted. In effect, the status of the petitioners is not acknowledged. Beyond this, they say, they are not ready to acknowledge any other person away from those mentioned in the indenture. Counsel for the respondents desired this aspect of his submission to be noted. In effect, the status of the petitioners is not acknowledged. Notwithstanding the submission on behalf of the petitioners or the respondents, the Court views the situation thus: (5.) THE purpose of making the grant by the Military and the Cantonment Board is on record. THE object is indicated. THE constructions which could be made were specified as of "four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and a store room. " To cut a long story short, the submissions of the petitioners are that when they submitted a plan for additions and more constructions, the permission was not forthcoming and after waiting for sometime as required by law they set about to make the new constructions. To their aid, the logic drawn is that if the sanction is not forthcoming within a certain period, then the so-called trustees could go ahead and complete the constructions. (6.) THIS case in this petition will have to be decided on the same ethics by which the Pujari of the temple would like to judge the world with ecclesiastical morality. Ordinary people of the material world are obliged to live by the law and morality and ethics of the spiritual order, if they belong to one. But the petitioners would like to take the temporal power to their advantage. THIS they will not be permitted to. Temple priests and managers will be seen to conform, all things considered in the matters of this case, with the same values as religions demand. What has been accepted in the petition is that there are unauthorised constructions made without permission but it is prayed that these be regularised. The expression 'unauthorised' and the assumption that it ought to be regularised are replete and repeated time and again in the text of the writ petition. (7.) THE Court has to see the situation both ways. THE Cantonment or the military administration cannot be humbled or com promised because a community, and it does not matter which community, will take the law into their own hand and intimidate an administration to be compromised to grant ex post facto permission and condonation for an act which otherwise needed a prior permission to accomplish. THE Cantonment or the military administration cannot be humbled or com promised because a community, and it does not matter which community, will take the law into their own hand and intimidate an administration to be compromised to grant ex post facto permission and condonation for an act which otherwise needed a prior permission to accomplish. (8.) SIMPLY put, the situation is only this that there is a lease deed which restricts construction of buildings mentioned in the deed itself. Now it is entirely up to the cantonment or the military authority to authorise the constructions otherwise these constructions would need to be dismantled by the petitioners. The petitioners must realise that a grant is made in their favour to construct the temples and that this in itself was a good gesture and in matters spiritual, temptation must not go to seek more than what was granted. Temple Managers and Pujaris can ill-afford leagal jugglary and dialectics and would be advised not be embroiled in it. The deeming provisions and fictions of man-made law are not for them. The Court reminds them of the indenture, that is the lease deed. At the end of the text in sub-clause (2) of Clause I it is provided "not to erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the premises hereby demised any building other than and except the four temples, a well, Pujari's hut and store-room hereby covenanted to be erected without the previous consent in writing of the Officer Com-mending-in-Chief the Command/cantonment Board. "The consequences of breaching the conditions of the covenant were that the lease could be resumed. Would the managers of the temples or the Pujari invite this situation : Watch and pray, they are enter not into temptation : St Mathew, 26: 41. For the military administration could aptly tell the ecclesiastical order of the temples "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" Ibid: 22:21. (9.) THIS Court cannot impose its discretion in the facts and circumstances of the present case upon the military authority or the administration of the cantonment concerned. For the military administration could aptly tell the ecclesiastical order of the temples "render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" Ibid: 22:21. (9.) THIS Court cannot impose its discretion in the facts and circumstances of the present case upon the military authority or the administration of the cantonment concerned. Counsel for the cantonment has brought a notice to the notice of the Court that a notice dated 27 May 1986 sent to the petitioner had already forewarned them that the hut, pucca room, bath and the hall which they have made is unauthorised and it will be in their own interest if these un authorised constructions are removed from the area of the land mentioned in the indenture of the lease. The petitioners must be satisfied with what they had been granted by the lease deed. The court is not satisfied that the petition has any merits to be admitted. (10.) ADMISSION is denied. The interim order of 1 February, 1995 is discharged. The petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.