Disposed

B.Hanumanth Rao, v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Telangana HC1 Mar 2012WP/15181/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of the writ petition though denied. it direction for regularization of unauthorized construction. The petitioner was permitted to file an application for regularization before the first respondent. Respondents are restrained from taking coercive steps till final orders on the application.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file an application for regularization within three weeks; respondents directed not to take coercive steps pending final orders.

B.Hanumanth Rao, Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.15181 of 2003

¶6

Between: B.Hanumanth Rao

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep.by its Executive Officer, Court Compound, Secunderabad and another

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.15181 of 2003

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

Petitioner claims himself to be the absolute owner of Plot No.8 in Sy.No.55 of Chandragiri Cooperative Housing Society, Trimulgherry village, Secunderabad.

¶15

The petitioner filed an application before the 1^st respondent for construction of a multi-storied complex, consisting of stilt, ground, first and second floors in the said plot. Sanction was accorded by the 1^st respondent vide CBR No.2(18-1) dated 29.07.1998. The said sanction

¶16

was valid for a period of one year. The petitioner through his GPA and Agreement Holder commenced construction within the stipulated period after due intimation to the respondents. It has been averred that the construction activity was also completed.

¶17

However, the 1^st respondent issued notice dated 15.11.1999 purporting to exercise power under Sec.185(1) of the Cantonment Act, wherein it was alleged that the erection of the building constructed by the petitioner constitute an offence under Sec.184 of the Cantonment Act, and directed the petitioner to remove the unauthorized construction within 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal in CA No.5/2000 under Sec.274 of the Cantonment Act before the 2^nd respondent and the same was also dismissed on 19.02.2003, which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he be permitted to file an application for regularization of his unauthorized construction raised by him before the 1^st respondent.

¶20

After hearing the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction that the petitioner, if he so advised, may file an application for regularization of his unauthorized construction before the 1^st respondent, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and on receipt of such application, the 1^st respondent may consider the same, if there is any provision, and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law. Till passing of final orders on the application of the petitioner, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps with regard to demolition of structures raised by the petitioner. No order as to costs.

¶21

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶22

Dated: 01.03.2012 Dsr

¶23

Note: Furnish copy in three days B/o Dsr

B.Hanumanth Rao, v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Hanumanth Rao, v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chanda Veeraiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.S.K. Sarawagi and Co.,(P) Ltd., Vs The Visakhapatnam Port Trust

Shaik Masrath Sahab Vs Secretary Union of India Ext.Affairs

M/s. Ncs Sugars Limited, Vs Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

M/s. Prudential Sugar Corporation Limited, Vs Union of India, Rep by its Secretary

M/s. Hyderabad Securities and Enterprises Ltd. Vs The Securities and Exchange Board of India