' IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The petitioner, a Textile concern, was housed in an old building. It planned for the renovation of its structure. While the renovation was underway, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 10-1-2005, issued by the respondent directing it to demolish the unauthorized construction carried out by it, within seven days. The construction/renovation was stopped by the petitioner. A building plan, after observing all the formalities, accompanied by all the required documents and the first notice, as stipulated tinder sections 179 and 180 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, was submitted on 7-1-2006. No reply was conveyed by the respondent. The petitioner sent the reminder, as stipulated under section 181(6) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The reminder was received by the Board on 14-2-2006. The respondent vide letter dated 27-3-2006, demanded the submission of stability certificate by the petitioner approved by structural engineer. It was replied by the petitioner that the required certificate had already been submitted along with the first notice. The above said correspondence was followed by issuance of a notice dated 10-8-2006 by the respondent informing that the Board had compounded the offence of unauthorized construction subject to payment of Rs,89,36,900 as composition fee. The petitioner was once again required to produce the certificate .By the structural Engineer that the drawings were prepared on structural applied code of rector scale of earthquake in the area.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not raised any unauthorized construction and has not contravened any provisions of law; that whereas on the one hand sections 178-A, 179, 180 and 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, prohibit the erection or re- erection of a building on any land in a Cantonment area except with the previous sanction of the Board on an application giving the notice in writing and said sections lay down the conditions of a valid notice and specify the powers of the Board to sanction or refuse, it also lay down some restrictions on the powers of the Board on the other hand. The refusal could only be ordered on sufficient grounds which have been mentioned under section 181 of the Act ibid. Section 181(6) provides as follows:--- "(6) Where the Board neglects or omits, for one month after the receipt of a valid notice, to make and to deliver to the person who has given the notice any order of any nature specified in this section, and such person thereafter by a written communication sent by registered pot to the Board calls the attention of the Board to the neglect or omission, then, if such neglect or omission continues for a further period of fifteen days from the date of such communication the Board shall be deemed to have given sanction to the erection or re-erection, as the case may be, unconditionally".
' In view of the provisions of this subsection the neglect or the omission of the Board for one month followed by a period of 15 days from the day of communication which in the instant case is 7-1- 2006, the Board is deemed to have given sanction of the plan unconditionally, thus, it is argued that the plan stands sanctioned and no penalty could be imposed. He further argues that the only penalty that could follow an illegal erection or re-erection of "a building is the imposition of fine which may extend to Rs,500 as is provided under section 184 of the Act or the demolition of such a building or the composition of the offence of unauthorized construction by payment of such amount as the Board thinks reasonable as is provided under section 185(1). It is contended that even if the construction is presumed to be unauthorized, the sum determined in the impugned notice for composition of the offence is irrational, unreasonable and betrays the despotic attitude of the Board.
3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the construction to the extent it had already been done before sending of the notice dated 10-1-2005 by the Board was and would be, for the times to come deemed to be an illegal and unauthorized construction and the petitioner would be liable to pay for the composition of the offence any amount to be fixed by the Board; that in case of non-composition of the offence, the building is liable to be demolished. It is further argued that this petition from its very inception is incompetent as the same has not been verified as provided under Order VI, Rule 15 of C.P.C.; that no prior notice was served on the Board before filing of the instant petition as is required under section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924; that the petition has been filed without placing any document showing the authority of the General Manager to file the petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
5. As far the prior notice under section 273 of the Act is concerned, the same is synonymous to the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 3, C.P.C. The latter mentioned provision of law requires the sending of a notice before presenting an appeal against an order. If the respondent or the defendant in case of any such omission opts to appear in the Court of law, such appearance would amount to waiver of the notice. Any omission in verification of the pleadings is rectifiable and the cause cannot be quashed on account of the omission to verify the pleadings at the foot. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is turned down. Chapter XI of the Cantonments Act, 1924, provides for the control over buildings and is meant to control the mushrooming of the structures, the encroachments, the erection, or re-erection of the buildings that do not correspond to the structural specification and to control the unhealthy, unhygienic and dangerous buildings. The authority to order the stoppage and demolition of the erected or re-erected building and is also meant for the said purpose. The composition of the offence of unauthorized construction is meant to put the constructors of such buildings and the prospective constructors at caution and guard that they do not repeat such offences in future. The fixation of the amount of penalty has to be reasonable. It should be in proportion to the fine leviable under section 184 of the Act ibid. The purpose of such composition should be to stop the repetition in future and not to enrich the local authority. The petitioner had prior to the raising of the construction submitted a construction plan along with the documents and notice as required under section 179 on 7-1-2006. The petitioner submitted the reminder on 11-2-2006. Its receipt was acknowledged by the respondent on the foot of the same notice on 14-2-2006. After one month of the receipt of the first notice, which was issued on 7-1-2006 and would have been received in couple of days in the ordinary course of business and the elapse of one month would have occurred somewhere near 10th of 'February, 2006 and after the elapse of 15 days more which would have occurred near about 25th of February, 2006, the Board shall 'be deemed to have given sanction to the erection or re-erection of the building and that too unconditionally. The amount for composition of any offence if committed, has to be fixed at a level that could discourage the repetition of the offence and cannot be fixed at such an exorbitant rate to facilitate the local council to amass the wealth and to make fortune. The notice dated 10-8-2006, issued by the respondent-Board is held to be illegal. It is set aside. In forming this opinion, I seek support from the judgment passed by their lordships in "2005 SCMR 1777" titled State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan through its Chairman and another v. Director General Military Lands and Cantonments, Rawalpindi and 4 otheRs, The building plan after the elapse of 30 days and 15 more days of the receipt of the first notice issued on 7-1-2006 is declared to have been sanctioned by the respondent hoard unconditionally. This petition is accepted.