Disposed

Sri R. Pratap Singh and another v. Union of India and 2 others

Telangana HC6 Dec 2023WP/7401/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought writ directions regarding construction permission and mutation of property names facing rejection by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. The court disposed of the petition without costs, granting liberty to challenge the rejection letters.

What did the court decide?

Disposed without costs; liberty granted to petitioners to challenge rejection letters from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board.

Sri R. Pratap Singh and another Vs Union of India and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 7401 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

t 9ri .n iqlqp _Singf,, S/o Late Ram Singh, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Retired H.No. 287lP, Comsary Bazar, New Bowenpa-ily, Secundera-bad -.1^.,l.

¶9

Sri Ratan Singh, S/o Late Ram Singh, Aged about 69 years, Occ. Shopkeeper R/o. F.No. 287lP, Comsary Bazar. New Bowenpally, S-ecunilerabad -1i.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Union of lndia, Rep by Defense Estate Officer Telangana Circle Secunderabad.

¶13

Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep By its Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Building, Secunderabad-3

¶14

Director General of Defense Estates, Southern Command Southern High Command Head Quarters, Kondhwa Road, Pune 411 O4O

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly, a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not to interfere with the absolute possession, enjoyment and construction work in respect of schedule property bearing H.No.46, 1-13-61 (New 1-12-239/1 ), now land admeasuring 75 sq. yards situated at Kadakpura, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad -^'t 1. as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles-19, 21 and 3004 of the Constitution of lndia and issue a consequential direction directing the Respondents, their subordinates and all persons claiming through them from interfering with the possession and enjoyment and construction work in and over all that plot bearing H.No.46, 1-1361 (New. 1-12-23911),land admeasuring 75 sq. yards situated at Kadakpura, New

¶17

Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 11 and arso direct Respondent No. 2 to mutate our names in GLR as per new order from Cantonment Board in lhe year 2012.

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶19

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 issue appropriate writ, order or Direction particularly, a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to give permission for construction in the schedule property in and over all that plot bearing H.No.46, 1-13-6.1 (New#i- 12-23gt1), land admeasuring 75 sq. yards situated at Kadakpura, New Bowenpalry, secunderabad - l1 , and also direct Respondent No.2 to mutate petitioners names in GLR as per new order from Cantonment Board in the year 2012.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

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 Respondents not to interfere with the absolute possession, enjoyment and construction work of the^petitioners in scheduled premises bearing H.No.46, 1-13-61 (New. 1-12-23911), land admeasuring 75 sq. yards situated at Kadakpura, New Bowenpally. Secunderabad - 11.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI MALIPEDDI RAJA LAXMI

¶23

cou nse I for the Res ponaents : ffi 33iHi6x="=ll-[HllBr,, o,o,

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 SRt. KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR Secunderabad Cantonment

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION o.740L OF 2023

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel Mr. Koteshwar Rao appearing on behalf ol the respondent No.2-Secunderabad Cantonment Board.

¶30

The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

¶31

"to issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction particularly, a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to give permission for construction in the schedule property in and over all that plot bearing H.No.46, 1-13-61(New#L-L2-239/L), land admeasuring 75 Sq.Yards situated at Kadakpura, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad - IL, and also direct respondent No.2 to mutate petitioners names in GLR as per new order from Cantonment Board in the year 20L2."

¶32

The learned Standing Counsel Mr. Koteshwar Rao, appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, places on record the letters dated 26.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 respectively. A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dated 26.05.2023 indicates that the mutation application of the

(

a'.4

petitioner dated 29.08.2022 had been considered by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and had been returned for the following reason :

¶37

"After detailed scrutiny it is observed that you did not enclose the registered title deed of the house, with link document and also an indenture agreeing the ownership rights over the land is with Ministry of Defence, Central Government.,,

¶38

A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dated 3O.05.2023 of respondent No.2 Cantonment Board referring to the building application of the petitioner dated 2L.O[.2OZL indicates that the said building application of the petitioner had been considered and has been returned for the following reasons:

¶39

"1. As per the records maintained by this Office the said house is falling in GLR Sy.No.553-3 and the land is classified as 83 Old Grant under management of Cantonment Board. The Holder of occupancy rights are vested with A Balamma Wo Venkatasamy and the land lord is Central Government.

¶40

The building plan submitted by you is not in accordance with section 235 of Cantonment Act 2006. 3. You have submitted a letter seeking permission without enclosing any plans, sale deeds and link documents etc, and yoq are also required to mutate your name in the GLR before submitting any building pla n. "

¶41

The learned Standing Counsel Mr. Koteshwar Rao submits that the petitioners are at liberty to challenge the

¶42

¶43

letters dated 26.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 of the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Cantonment Board, returning the applications dated 29.08.2022 and 2L.O7.2021 of the petitioner seeking for mutation and for approval of building plan, respectively.

¶44

Recording the aforesaid submission on record, the writ petition is disposed off giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the letters dated 26.05.2023 and 30.05.2023 of the Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶46

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REODY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Defense Estate officer, Telangana circle Secunderabad Union of lndia. 2. The chief Executive officer, secunderabad cantonment Board, canionment Building, Secunderabad-3

¶51

The Director General of Defense Estates, southern command southern High Command Head Quarters, Kondhwa Road, pune 411040

¶52

One CC to SRI MALIPED_D| RAJA LAXM|, Advocate. [OPUC]

¶53

ONE CC tO SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, (DY. SOIICITOh CEruCNRI Or

¶54

^^{INDIA), High_qgq4lg1thg Slate of Tetangand ai Hyderabad. tOpUC]--} 6. One CC to SRI KOTESHWAR RAO, SC.-tOpUCl^'

¶55

Two CD Copies. BSK GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212023

1 E STAI€ (,
r'(](
v
r-) [ 3 J[li ?ii\ o ,l
',j /i:

tl1'' : ' 11 t; " "" -1.i

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.7401 of 2023

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

V 1)
27

Sri R. Pratap Singh and another v. Union of India and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R. Pratap Singh and another v. Union of India and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Bhaskar Reddy Vs State of Telangana

M/s. C.P.LData Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs The Union of India

Chiraboina Laxmaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Medhodist Degree Collee, Vs The Director and Commissioner of Collegiate Education

Sri Keerti Sai Reddy Yalala Vs The Union of India

Orsu Thirupathayya Vs The Union of India