B.N.Krishan v. The Chief Executive Officer, Officer of the Cantonment Board

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023WP/33130/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, finding that the grievance against the second respondent for illegal construction was already addressed via notices and counter affidavits filed by the first respondent, held that no further orders were required and closed the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without costs as the grievance was found to be redressed.

B.N.Krishan Vs The Chief Executive Officer, Officer of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K,LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 33130 OF 2010

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.N.Krishna, S/o Late Narasimha, aged 62 years, Occ: Retd Deputy M.R.O., R/o.H.No.343, Chintala Bazar, Bolarum, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad.

¶12

P.Venkateshwarlu, S/o Late P.Laxmaiah, aged 55 years, Occ : Govt employee, R/o.345/4, Chintal Bazar Bollarum, Secunderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in tfiie circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or directron, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the lst respondent in not taking any action against the 2nd respondent on the illegal construction made by the 2nd respondent at H.No.345/4, Chintal Bazar, Secunderabad as well as not demolishing the same as illegal, arbitrary, violation of provisions of cantonment Act, 2006 as well as violation of Article 14, 16 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶15

l.A.NO:1 OF 201O(WPMP. NO: 42061 OF 2010)

¶16

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dt. 2911-2010 made to the 1st respondent and to pass appropriate orders thereon, pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.S.SRINIVASA SHARMA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI.K.R KOTESWERA RAO(SR SC FOR GANTOTIMENT)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI.L.ANAND, ADV FOR SRI.P.NAGENDRA REDDY

¶20

The Court made the following ORDER

¶21

I I

¶22

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.3313O of 2O1O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard Sri Sreenivasa Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.R. Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri L. Anand, iearned counsel representing Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

¶26

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not taking action against respondent No.2 on the illegal construction made by at H.No.345/A, Chintal Bazar, Secunderaabd as well as not demolishing the sarne as illegal and violation of provisions of Cantonment Act, 2006.

¶27

Respondent No.1 had filed counter along with copies of notice under Sub-Section (1) of Section 185 of the Candonment Act, 1924 (2 of l92a) dated 13-10-2006 and

¶28

¶29

notice under Ser:tion 32O of the Cantonments Act, 2006 dated 3l-Ol-2OO7. In paragraph No.7 of the counter there is specific mention about action taken against respondent No.2.

¶30

In view of the same and also considering the said proceedings, since the grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is redressed, according to this Court no further orders are required to pass in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be closed.

¶31

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶32

As a sequei, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶33

¶34

assrsfil-rGnE5SF:IA //rRUE COPY// (iD SECTION OFFICER

¶35

1 One CC to SRI S.SRtN|VASA SHARMA, Advocate tOpUCl 2 one cc to SRt.K.R.KOTESWERA RAO (SR SC FO'R CANTONMENT) loPUcl 4J Two One CD CopiesCC to SRI.P.NAGENDRA REDDY, Advocate topUCl S.A GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412023

ORDER

WP.No.33130 of 2010

1 tiE S T4 it-
(
1.'!
1 :
I
3 10 ilAY2023 'i
1
't'

¶42

CLOSING THE W.P

¶43

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶44

\9/ \sk
t

B.N.Krishan v. The Chief Executive Officer, Officer of the Cantonment Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.N.Krishan v. The Chief Executive Officer, Officer of the 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

Yaskhi Anasuya Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

N.Awantika Devi Vs The State of Telangana and 4 other

N.Awantika Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Mukka Industries, Jammikunta, Vs Food Corporation of India., Regional office, 3rd floor

M/s.Om Shiv Shakti Iron Industries Pvt.Ltd Vs The Company Law Board,Addl.Principle Bench at Chennai

M/S.Srinivasa Edifice Pvt.Ltd., Secunderabad. Vs Union of India, by Gm., South Central Railway and 4 Others