Voting Rights Denied for Residents in Unauthorized Constructions: Land Encroachment Rules Upheld

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that individuals residing in unauthorized constructions are not entitled to vote in Cantonment Board elections. The Court emphasized adherence to Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007, and narrowly construed the term "resident" under the Cantonment Act, 2006, excluding those in illegal structures. The Court affirmed the need for strict implementation of legislative policies regarding the removal of encroachments on defense land. Elections conducted under interim orders were deemed invalid, and directions were given for the preparation of a fresh voters list in compliance with Rule 10(3).

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Right to vote of persons living in illegally constructed buildings in a Cantonment area.
2. Preparation of electoral rolls in accordance with Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007.
3. Maintainability of a Writ Petition challenging the voters list.
4. Interpretation of the term "resident" under the Cantonment Act, 2006.
5. Impact of interim orders on the validity of elections conducted.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Vote of Persons Living in Illegally Constructed Buildings in a Cantonment Area:
The primary issue was whether individuals residing in unauthorized structures in a Cantonment area are entitled to vote. The Court concluded that only individuals residing in legally constructed houses are entitled to be registered as voters. The term "resident" in the Cantonment Act, 2006, implies a person who maintains a house constructed with prior sanction from the Board. Encroachers or those living in unauthorized constructions do not qualify as residents for electoral purposes.

2. Preparation of Electoral Rolls in Accordance with Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007:
The Court emphasized that electoral rolls must be prepared strictly in accordance with Rule 10(3), which mandates that names of electors be arranged according to house numbers. This rule excludes individuals living in houses without assigned numbers, typically those in unauthorized constructions, from being included in the electoral roll. The Court rejected the argument that Rule 10(3) conflicts with Section 28 of the Act, affirming that Rule 10(3) is in conformity with the statutory provisions.

3. Maintainability of a Writ Petition Challenging the Voters List:
The Court addressed the maintainability of the Writ Petition challenging the voters list, asserting that the proviso to Rule 55 explicitly states that no election petition is maintainable for inclusion or exclusion in the electoral rolls. Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent was deemed maintainable.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Resident" under the Cantonment Act, 2006:
The Court undertook a detailed interpretation of the term "resident" as defined in Section 2(zt) of the Cantonment Act, 2006, which requires maintaining a house available for occupation by oneself or one's family. This definition implies that the house must be legally constructed with prior sanction from the Board. The Court contrasted this with the broader term "inhabitant," which includes those residing in unauthorized structures but does not confer electoral rights.

5. Impact of Interim Orders on the Validity of Elections Conducted:
The Court upheld the High Court's decision that elections conducted pursuant to an interim order, which were subject to the outcome of the Writ Appeal, do not confer any rights on the elected candidates once the election is set aside. The High Court's directions for the preparation of a fresh voters list in accordance with Rule 10(3) were affirmed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's judgment that encroachers and individuals living in unauthorized constructions are not entitled to vote in Cantonment Board elections. The preparation of electoral rolls must strictly adhere to Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007, and the term "resident" under the Cantonment Act, 2006, should be narrowly construed to exclude those in illegal structures. The Court also emphasized the need for strict implementation of legislative policies and provisions relating to the removal of encroachments on defense land.

---