THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No.191 of 2010
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. K.R.Koteswera Rao, learned Standing Counsel for
the appellant.
Mr. P.Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for
respondent No.1.
2. This intra court appeal has been filed against
an order dated 19.01.2010 passed in W.P.No.13924 of
2001 by learned Single Judge, by which writ petition
preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to in this order as per their ranking before the
learned Single Judge.
4. Facts
giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the petitioner is the owner and in ::2::
possession of land comprising Bungalow No.173, situated in GLR S.No.537, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. The petitioner has raised gardens and named it as 'Mallareddy Gardens' and leased out the same for functions and marriages. The Cantonment Board, Secunderabad issued a notice to the petitioner under Section 185(1) of the Cantonments Act, 1924 on the ground that there are unauthorized constructions and deviations in the said Bungalow No.173 and the same should be removed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
5. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal under Section 274 of the Cantonments Act before Union of India, which was dismissed by an order dated 31.05.2001. The petitioner thereupon challenged the validity of the notice dated 14.10.1996 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 31.05.2001 in a writ petition.
6. Learned Single Judge by an order dated 19.01.2010 inter alia held that the notice dated 14.10.1996 is arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the notice dated ::3::
14.10.1996 was quashed and the writ petition was allowed. Learned Single Judge, however, held as follows:
"However, this will not preclude the respondents from levying compound fee, if any unauthorized constructions are raised by the petitioner on the subject land."
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant could not have been invoked from exercising its statutory powers under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 afresh.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that since constructions have been raised, no action under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 can be taken against respondent No.1 at this point of time.
9. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case, the order dated 19.01.2010 passed in W.P.No.13924 of 2001 by the learned Single Judge insofar as it grants the liberty that the aforesaid order will not preclude the respondents ::4::
from levying compound fee, if any unauthorized constructions are raised by the petitioner on the subject land is set aside and it is directed that the appellant, if so advised shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to it in law. Needless to state that in case such an action is taken, it will be open for respondent No.1 to contest all such grounds as may be available to him in law.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ _______________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J Date: 26.09.2023 KL