Secunderabad Cantonment Board, vs C.Malla ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2745 Tel

  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