JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Sankatha Rai, senior advocate assisted by Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Anil Dwivedi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, Government of India representing respondent No. 4. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed series of orders dated 20.11.09 passed by the DDC, Kanpur Nagar in revision No. 142/320, Vishnu Narain Garg v. Union of India under Section 48 C.H. Act, 22.8.09 passed by the Assistant SOC in appeal, 31.10.08 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioners in addition to these orders has also challenged the order dated 9.2.09 passed by C.O., Kanpur Nagar in case No. 58 filed by Union of India under Section 52(2) of C.H.Act and Rule 109 of C.H. Rules to make Amaldaramad of the order dated 31.10.08 in the revenue record, map etc. 3. The petitioners claim themselves to be erstwhile Zamindar of village Sachendi, Pargana, Tehsil and district Kanpur. Their ancestors were also Zamindar of village Sachendi who had purchased Zamindari from some Khatri family of Kanpur city and some other families in the year 1916 and around. Earlier the plots in dispute were recorded as plot No. 349, 2810, 2870 later known as plots No. 270, 2345. Just for straightening the record now these plots are recorded as plots No. 349, 2810 and 2871 having a total area of 62 Bighas 2 Biswa situate in village Sachendi in district Kanpur city. 4. The consolidation proceedings were initiated in the village by issuing a formal notification under Section 4A (2) on 4.11.64. The land was recorded as a Military Camping Ground (Paarao) in the concerned revenue entry. A case No. 3092 under Section 9-A(2) of C.H.Act was filed by Krishna Narain and others, father of petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5. This case was ex parte decided on 22.9.66. The Consolidation Officer had declined to entertain one M. Subramaniyam who had appeared for Union of India. His power of attorney was not recognised. Anyway the order was challenged before the SOC who had allowed the appeal and the order passed by the C.O., Kanpur was set aside. A revision was preferred in the Court of DDC, Kanpur, which was allowed in favour of Union of India. 5. His power of attorney was not recognised. Anyway the order was challenged before the SOC who had allowed the appeal and the order passed by the C.O., Kanpur was set aside. A revision was preferred in the Court of DDC, Kanpur, which was allowed in favour of Union of India. 5. The order passed by the revisional Court was challenged by Krishna Narain Garg, Vishnu Narain Garg and Kailash Narain Garg etc. in this Court by filing a writ petition No. 4313 of 1970 against the order passed by the DDC, Kanpur. 6. This Court allowed the writ petition. The matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the judgment. This Court while rendering the judgment on 1.8.73 has taken note of the fact that in the basic year the plots in dispute were recorded as Military Camping Ground (Parao). The DDDC had arrived at a conclusion that since the plots in dispute were recorded as Military Camping Ground (Parao) the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act were not applicable to them. These plots were not covered by the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.Act. The plots were excluded from consolidation proceedings. The Court has also taken note of the fact that a gazette notification vide Gazette of India Extraordinary dated Ist April 1937 was issued according to which the lands specified therein together with the buildings situated thereon had been retained by the Governor General in Council for further use for the purposes of the Federal Government. The Schedule indicates that an area of 31.4376 acres was shown as Military Camping Ground at village Sachendi in the district Kanpur. The details of Extraordinary Gazette issued under Section 172 of Government of India Act, 1935 by the Governor General in Council was on record of this Court and this finds place on record before the Consolidation Officer. 7. The petitioner’s claim before this Court was that the notification falls short of 62 Bigha of land and the petitioner would still be entitled for excess of the area mentioned in the said notification. This Court has quashed the ex parte order passed by the CO on 22.9.66. A finding has been recorded that in the basic year if the plots really constituted Military Camping Ground, Sirdari rights could not accrue therein. This Court has quashed the ex parte order passed by the CO on 22.9.66. A finding has been recorded that in the basic year if the plots really constituted Military Camping Ground, Sirdari rights could not accrue therein. This was a vital point to be adjudicated by the consolidation authorities. The Consolidation Courts were required to hold as to what Sirdari rights would flow in favour of the petitioners. Another round of litigation was started. The Consolidation Officer dealt with the matter afresh. The objections of the petitioners and Union of India were considered. Formal orders were passed on 2.6.95 by the C.O., which find place on the record. When the petitioners (or their father) filed a restoration application, the same was rejected on 17.6.95. The appeal was preferred before the SOC by the petitioners which was dismissed on 21.3.06. Assailing the said order, revision was preferred which was allowed on 29.9.07. The matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for considering the same on the merits. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 29.10.07. The CO vide order dated 29.10.07 has rejected the objections put forth by Krishna Narain. He had maintained the entry in the records in the name of Military Camping Ground (Parao). Another appeal was preferred on 10.12.08 which was dismissed on 22.8.09. The petitioner preferred a revision on 29.8.09 which was dismissed. In the meantime Union of India filed a formal application on 29.1.09 under Section 52(2) of C.H.Act and Rule 109 of C.H.Rules before the Consolidation Officer to make Amaldaramad/entry to the order of 31.10.08 in the revenue record, map etc. The Consolidation Officer approved the record of the reporting officer and had ordered on 9.2.09 to issue Parwana Amaldaramad. Another appeal was filed on 1.7.09 which was dismissed on 22.8.09. The petitioner again preferred a revision on 29.8.09 which was ultimately dismissed on 20.11.09 giving cause of action to the petitioner to prefer this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has laid much stress on the revenue entries of Fasli years 1368 1359, 1362 and other entry to demonstrate that the petitioners and their ancestors were Zamindars of village Sachendi including the land in dispute. They were cultivating the land and having possession over the same. 8. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has laid much stress on the revenue entries of Fasli years 1368 1359, 1362 and other entry to demonstrate that the petitioners and their ancestors were Zamindars of village Sachendi including the land in dispute. They were cultivating the land and having possession over the same. The old order passed on 19.9.1911 by the then Collector of Kanpur Sri G.C.Tayer was produced to show that the revenue authorities had recognised the rights of the petitioners to use and occupy the land alongwith the trees and fruits and take out timber etc. He has further submitted that the Consolidation Officer had ignored the revenue entry and continuous possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute. He had reiterated the same grounds which were raised in this Court in the first writ petition and in various proceedings which took place before the CO, SOC and DDC at Kanpur. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents, judgments, proceeding, chronology of events and background of the case. The plots No. 349, 2810, 2871 having a total area of 62 Bighas 2 Biswas of village Sachendi were recorded in the basic year as Military Camping Ground ( Parao). It is relevant to mention that during military operations several military camping grounds were established in major cities where Cantonment existed. After the events of 1857, the Britishers strengthened their Army establishments in the cities where disturbances of 1857, first war of Independence took place. Some cities like Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Meerut, Delhi, Ambala, Firozpur,Lahore, Calcutta now Kolkatta, Gwalior etc. were surrounded by military camps. The lands were earmarked as military camping grounds and shooting ranges etc. Taking an example of city of Allahabad as per the old maps, the CITY which had remained a strong hold of the British after the war of PLASSEY had military grounds on all sides. Camps were in Naini, Jhunsi, Bamaraulli,and Phaphamau. As per old records and history of Allahabad there was an airbase in Phaphamau which was used in the second world war. Similarly, Bamarauli was the first aviation centre where flying was introduced to young gentlemen in pre independence days which was later on converted as Air Force Base. 10. Similarly, city of Lucknow, right from north south east west, was surrounded by military camps. Similarly, Bamarauli was the first aviation centre where flying was introduced to young gentlemen in pre independence days which was later on converted as Air Force Base. 10. Similarly, city of Lucknow, right from north south east west, was surrounded by military camps. These were on Faizabad Road, Sultanpur Road, Mandion Dilkusha Alam Bag etc. The old Gazette like Awadh Gazetter of the Region make mention of allocation of these lands. After the first war of Independence 1857-58, it can be gathered that such military camps were existing in the surrounding areas of Kanpur city including the one of village Sachendi. This Court has taken note of the relevant revenue entries. Krishna Narain Garg etc. were recorded as “non-occupancy tenants” in “class 10 A”. Even in the order passed by Mr.G.S.Tayer, IAS, the then Collector, Kanpur demonstrates that the land was taken for military use. The Zamindars gave up the land for use as Military Camping Ground without consideration. However, the erstwhile Zamindars were permitted to continue possession and enjoy fruits and trees but it was nowhere mentioned that they were given “ownership of the land”. Land had remained with the Govt. This has been clarified by the notification of 1.4.37 issued by Govt. of India. Government’s ownership is further strengthened from the notification dated 1.4.1937 issued by the Government of India under Section 172 of Government of India Act. It was declared that the plots having the area of 62 Bighas, 2 Biswas of village Sachendi village, Kanpur City were “Military Camping Grounds”. It was the property of Governor General in Council and after the independence it was vested in the President of India. 11. The land which is recorded as Military Camp in the name of the Central Government in the government record has to be excluded from the Chakbandi operations and the entries have been rightly recorded. The Consolidation Courts have considered the provisions of Section 132 of U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act according to which such land which belongs to Government of India has been excluded from the operation of said law and Chakbandi operations. Even the law is settled that a land which is vested in the Govt. of India cannot be acquired by the State Government. No notification can be issued for acquiring Military Camping Land, Cantonment Lands or which is property of the Government of India. Even the law is settled that a land which is vested in the Govt. of India cannot be acquired by the State Government. No notification can be issued for acquiring Military Camping Land, Cantonment Lands or which is property of the Government of India. The Courts have given a categorical findings regarding the nature and status of such lands. As per revenue records and applying the provisions contained in Section 132, the land was rightly excluded from consolidation operations and entries were corrected accordingly. It is further to be noted that even this Court in its above mentioned judgment had written few sentences in this regard regarding the status of the land. It was further pleaded before the consolidation Court that in the 1941 settlement, the land was recorded as a Military Camping Ground under the control of Defence Department under Government of India. It is noteworthy that in the year 1948, the Collector, Kanpur city had given the land on 4 years Patta to the petitioner’s father. When they did not remove illegal occupation to be counted from the year 1948, a case for eviction was filed before the Court under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises Act which was pending disposal. These facts cannot be ignored. 12. Moreover, after implementation of U.P.Z.A.L.R.Act, the petitioner or their father were government lessee and they could not have been recorded as Sirdar or Bhumidhar. As far as the use and occupation of the land, the petitioners have already enjoyed the fruits of a long drawn litigation. They had made good use of Military Camping Ground which was a big chunk of land covering 62 Bighas 2 Biswas. It was also brought to the notice of consolidation authorities that in “Military Land Register” which records all the lands which belongs to the Defence, the disputed plots of land are still entered as “Military Land” without change. It was also brought to the notice of the Consolidation Courts that the Collector, Kanpur on behalf of the Central Government had auctioned and sold Dhak trees. Leaves of Dhak trees are used for making Dona and Pattal. In view of the above also this Court finds that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order. The order is based on appreciation of facts and law which is still in vogue. Leaves of Dhak trees are used for making Dona and Pattal. In view of the above also this Court finds that there is no illegality and infirmity in the order. The order is based on appreciation of facts and law which is still in vogue. The land which are used for Military Camps are not covered by the provisions of Consolidation of Holdings Act and U.P.Z.A.LR.Act. Accordingly, the revenue and consolidation authorities have corrected the records. In view of above, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. The impugned orders are unassailable. 13. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by learned counsel for the Union of India that in the northern cities where Military Cantonments are existing, a large number of encroachments have been made by the influential persons, land grabbers. Several cases have been filed in this Court relating to districts of Meerut, Allahabad, Bareilly, Luckow, Varanasi, Kanpur and other areas. This is going on all over India. The Defence Estate Officer has a duty to maintain the record and take care of the defence properties. The Govt. Lands must be protected and encroachers must be ousted so that the defence land is used for military purposes only or for residential purposes of Army Personnel and Ex. Army personnel. A detailed exercise has to be carried out all over India. 14. The Army does not have adequate land for “military purposes” and for carrying on its day to day affairs and operations including regular training. One of the primary reason for survival of India’s vibrant democracy can be said to be our safe borders. The sentinels to the nation are a shining example of dedication, devotion and self services. The same comes from our ethos as well as from training. Our 1.5 million strong army is trained well. It is the training which is intrinsically wedded with the case in hand as explained herein under. 15. Kautilya’s thought is, if you wish to reign well train and entertain your army well. Little wonder that be it the salubrious surroundings of Srinagar, Ranikhet, Wellington, Lansdown or the harsh deserts of Samkhar, Jaisalmer or Bikaner areas, cold deserts of Leh, Laddakh, freezing North Eastern Borders, Siachin glacier sprawling over hundreds of miles are grounds of Military Training and operations. The Indian Army is spread all over the borders. Little wonder that be it the salubrious surroundings of Srinagar, Ranikhet, Wellington, Lansdown or the harsh deserts of Samkhar, Jaisalmer or Bikaner areas, cold deserts of Leh, Laddakh, freezing North Eastern Borders, Siachin glacier sprawling over hundreds of miles are grounds of Military Training and operations. The Indian Army is spread all over the borders. India’s Army, far and wide, in order to ensure adequate training, requires ample open and uninterrupted space and training grounds. As per old thoughts, if you have to develop, need of the day is effective training of your Army. 16. Training is largely a peace-time activity, which is carried out in the Cantonment Areas, having large fields, camping grounds of military(Paraos), meant for military training and exercises. It means that an Army Unit stationed at Kanpur or at some other place in India shall commence its day at 5:00 A.M. with P.T. And end up at 10:00 P.M. In addition to it, Night trainings is also carried out. The dictum “More you sweat in peace the less you bleed in war”, is all too well known. 17. As has been informed, the training grounds are usually of three types, (1) in the near vicinity, (b) in far away ranges and (C) Camping grounds. For going from (a) point to (b), all of them put together are known as defence lands. 18. The Central Government has established Cantonment Boards and has appointed Cantonment Executive Officers as well as Defence Estate Officers to protect, preserve and maintain Defence land and Estates. They are required to act in tandem with the “local military authorities” as per relevant manuals. 19. After having reasoned out the importance and necessity of the defence lands, this Court cannot refrain itself from expressing apprehension, which stem out from the instant case. 20. The Land Mafias and Land Grabbers are encroaching, transgressing and grabbing the lands around the Defence Estates,may it be Kanpur, Lucknow, Allahabad, Bareilly, Meerut, Banglore, Bhopal, Ranikhet, Bombay, Bhopal or Sukhna lake area. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that Entertainment Centres, Marriage Halls, Posh colonies Professional Educational Institutions, run by private parties and multi storied Buildings are being established uninterruptedly on army lands. 21. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that Entertainment Centres, Marriage Halls, Posh colonies Professional Educational Institutions, run by private parties and multi storied Buildings are being established uninterruptedly on army lands. 21. With Burgeoning sea of humanity moving to cities in search of the leverage of better living, almost all the cities are bursting at the seams and the civilians as well as land sharks are staking hungrily at the nearby Cantonments, defence lands for expansion. That is a cause of concern for all citizens. The Army cannot be squeezed into less space and be expected to train so well that it may be able to fire on Mountains deserts,plains or render help in flooded areas. Peace keeping in Sri Lanka and other parts of the world and disturbed cities. Army always delivers beyond our expectations, whether it is war or peace. The Role of Army is known to every citizen of India. 22. The persons entrusted with the work to protect and preserve the defence land, especially local Military Commanders owe it to the nation to ensure that the land earmarked to the former by the latter does not go into unauthorised hands, thereby frustrating the very purpose for which these defence lands have been kept reserved, that is for the purpose of training and preparation of our Army. Any deficiency in training or preparation of the Army may not result making this Country see the risk of losing its sovereignty. 23. It is common knowledge as to how private residential are as sprawling malls have come up in place of training or Camping grounds all over the Country; suspectedly as a result of ineffective monitoring, negligent, careless and callous approach of the authorities entrusted with the duty to protect it. Defence lands or lands contiguous thereto in Sukhna Banglore and Ranikhet is in the news due to wrong reasons. 24. Defence lands or lands contiguous thereto in Sukhna Banglore and Ranikhet is in the news due to wrong reasons. 24. Keeping in mind the avowed intent and purpose in mind and with a sense of patriotic duty, it is the duty of the Court that Union of India, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi be directed to issue directions to its Army Commanders of all the Commands, to get all kinds of defence lands and Estates surveyed,Maps be prepared and report to the Ministry of Defence if there is any slightest unauthorised encroachment, occupancy or illegal usurpation thereof for taking legal measures to ensure that our Forces are not forced to be housed into pigeon holes, but instead, retain their original spaces and holdings so that our Army may be trained well and serve the nation well. Appropriate directions may be issued by the above authority immediately to the concerned officers in furtherance of observations made by this Court in this judgment. ————