Smt.Umrao Bantia And Another vs Sec Bad Cantonment Board E.O.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4373 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                  WRIT PETITION No.2528 OF 2003
ORAL ORDER:

       As per the information furnished by the Registry, this writ petition

is pending, but, however, bundle is not available. Therefore, permission

is accorded to reconstruct the bundle. Accordingly, Mr. K. R. Koteswara

Rao, learned counsel for respondent has furnished papers vide U.S.R.

No.76442 of 2022, dated 29.08.2022. Despite listing the matter under

the caption 'for orders', even today there is no representation on behalf

of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. K.R. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the record.

3. Perusal of the record would reveal that petitioner No.1 herein

had submitted a representation dated 23.01.2003 with the respondents to

regularize / compound the unauthorized structures erected in Bungalow

No.207, Sikh Road, Secunderabad Cantonment Area, Secunderabad.

Vide order dated 05.02.2003, the respondents have rejected the said

application on the following grounds:

i. Subject land is classified as 'B-3' Land (Old Grants) under the

management of Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad

KL,J W.P. No.2528 of 2003

and the ownership rights are vested with the Central Government.

Therefore, the constructions were made on the Central

Government land without prior permission;

ii. Constructions made on the subject premises are very close to the

Begumpet Airport, Hyderabad, and is in the path of Landing and

Taking of Aero-planes, and the same is in violation of height

restrictions imposed by the Competent Authority i.e., Civil

Aviation Department;

iii. The statutory notices under Section 185 (i) and 256 of the

Cantonments Act issued by the respondents and the petitioners

herein had challenged the said notices by way of filing a civil suit

vide O.S. No.676 of 1998. The said suit was dismissed and

feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein had filed an

appeal vide A.S. No.59 of 2001 and the same was also dismissed.

Therefore, the petitioners herein had filed second appeal vide S.A.

No.881 of 2002, and this Court vide judgment dated 22.01.2003

dismissed the said second appeal. In the said order, there is a

finding that both the Courts below have held that the petitioners

herein put up new constructions in the suit premises without

obtaining permission from the respondent - defendant. Whether

KL,J W.P. No.2528 of 2003

the petitioners put up new constructions or effected repairs to the

existing structures is purely a question of fact. Both the Courts

below on thorough consideration of the evidence brought on

record held that the petitioners put up new constructions in the suit

premises. Therefore, both the Courts below have rightly

dismissed the suit and appeal.

iv) The petitioners herein had submitted the application at belated

stage and the same was rejected.

4. The aforesaid facts would reveal that the respondents had

rejected the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 23.01.2003

vide proceedings dated 05.02.2003 on the aforesaid grounds. Therefore,

there is no error in it.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioners herein failed

to make out any case to interfere with the said proceedings passed by the

respondent. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

6. The present Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However,

in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

KL,J W.P. No.2528 of 2003

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 5th September, 2022 Mgr