AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda
When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri N. Devhadass, learned senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India submits that tenders will not be called for from cable operators to install antennas, dishes to provide network service to residents of CRPF campus at Yelahanka. Therefore, apprehension of respondent that appellant is going to call for tenders is baseless. The learned trial Judge, without noticing that respondent has been squatting on the defence property even after lapse of period of agreement, has granted an order of temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge has ignored that CRPF campus is the property of Union of India and the property is a prohibited area.
The respondent-plaintiff has no justification to squat on the defence property under the guise of licence, which came to an end in the year 2012.
The Learned Counsel for respondent submits that licence held by respondent for running cable T.V. network has been renewed. If it is so, the respondent can operate cable T.V. network in a place where she has been permitted to do so. On the strength of licence, respondent cannot squat on the defence property.
The learned trial Judge ignoring the nature of property and rights professed by respondent under the licence has granted an order of temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge is unmindful of security of CRPF Campus. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The appeals are accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. It is made clear that the suit property belongs to Union of India. The residents, who have been permitted to stay in CRPF Campus or the Estate Officer of CRPF Campus, cannot entertain private individuals to enter into CRPF Campus to carry on cable T.V. network operations.