Dismissed

J.Srinivasulu v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Telangana HC17 Jul 2012WP/19099/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition asking for a mandamus to declare the Board's interference illegal. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to challenge the notice issued under Section 239 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed, though it was clarified that an opportunity under Section 248 must be given before any demolition steps. WPMP was cl

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. An opportunity under Section 248 must be given before any demolition steps.

J.Srinivasulu Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19099 of 2012

¶3

Date : 17.07.2012

Between :

J. Srinivasulu.

…..Petitioner

And

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer & another.

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19099 of 2012

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

This writ petition is filed seeking directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the building construction work in Plot No.17, Sy.Nos.46, 48, 52/1, 54/1, 55/1 & 59/1, admeasuring 608 square yards, situated at Railway Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Marredpally, Secunderabad, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a plot bearing No.17 in Sy.Nos.46, 48, 52/1, 54/1, 55/1 & 59/1, admeasuring 608 square yards, situated at Railway Employees Co-operative House Building Society, Marredpally, Secunderabad. It is stated that though he obtained building permission from the respondent authorities along with approved plan, there is interference by the respondents with the constructions made by him. Precisely, it is the case of petitioner that without initiating proceedings as contemplated under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, respondents cannot interfere with his constructions.

¶14

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner, claiming that he is the owner of site admeasuring 608 square yards, obtained permission on 29.06.2011, for construction of

¶15

residential building in stilt plus three upper floors. It is stated that as per the approved plan, stilt floor is meant for parking and the petitioner was permitted to make constructions to an extent of 6003 square feet in the three upper floors. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner has sold 286 square yards out of the above said 608 square yards on 20.08.1984 under registered sale deed, to Sri G.Gopal Krishna Reddy, but suppressing the same, he applied for building permission, as if he is the owner of the entire plot. It is further stated that the petitioner has entered into development agreement on 04.10.2010 with M/s.Mahalakshmi Estates and made constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan. It is specifically stated that though no constructions are permitted in the stilt floor as per the approved plan, the petitioner has also made constructions in the stilt area, which is earmarked for parking. In the counter, it is categorically stated that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, is returned with an endorsement, ‘not claimed’. With the aforesaid averments, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶16

In this writ petition, the petitioner has not questioned the notice, which is stated to have been issued under Section 239 of the Cantonments Act. Although it is the case of petitioner that he is not given any opportunity before taking steps for demolition of constructions made

¶17

by him, but undisputedly, no notice is issued for demolition, as contemplated under Section 248 of the Act. If unauthorized constructions are to be removed, an opportunity is provided under Section 248(1) of the Act.

¶18

Notice issued under Section 239 of the Act only confines to the directions for stopping of constructions being made by the petitioner and it will not deal with any power for ordering demolition. As it is stated that the petitioner is proceeding with constructions in deviation to the sanctioned plan, and in the absence of questioning the notice issued under Section 239 of the Act, I do not find any merit in the writ petition for grant of directions as prayed for. However, it is made clear that before taking up any steps for demolition, I am sure the respondents will give an opportunity to the petitioner as contemplated under Section 248 of the Act.

¶19

Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶20

As a sequel, WPMP.No.24469 of 2012 stands closed.

¶21

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶22

17^th July 2012 ajr

J.Srinivasulu v. Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Srinivasulu 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

M/s Grandhi Manikyala Rao Industries(P) Ltd. Vs Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

M/s. K. Suryanarayana Raju Vs Food Corporation of India

M/s. Sri Dhairyalakshmi Rice Mill, Vs Food Corporation of India, Regional Office

Agro Tech Foods Limited, Vs The Union of India

Saif Hussain Vs The Government of India

Vuppala Nageswara Rao Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh