[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Mr.Nandu Mandal vs The Secunderabad Cantonment Board on 7 April, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 36725 OF 2024
07.04.2026
Between:
Mr. Nandu Mandal
..... Petitioner
And
The Secunderabad Cantonment Board,
Rep.by its Chief Executive Officer.
..... Respondent
O R D E R:
Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and
possessor of the property bearing SCB House No.04-08-329
situated in Survey No.169/2, admeasuring 176.66 square
yards, abutting Picket, West Marredpally Village Road,
Secunderabad Cantonment, having purchased the same under
a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.1645/2018 dated
08.08.2018 from (1) Mr. Rama Raju Chandrakala W/o late R.
Narasimha Rao, (2) Ms. Rama Raju Anusha D/o Mr. R
Narasimha Rao, (3) Sri M. Prashanth Babu S/o Late Mr.
Paramaiah, (4) Mr. Mohd. Vasiuddin S/o Mr. Mohd. Rafiuddin
and (5) Mr. M. Santhosh S/o Mr. M. Satyanarayana Murthy and
has been in possession and enjoyment of the property since
then.
1.1. It is stated, originally the property belonged to Sri
M.A. Raheem who purchased the land from the Pattadar Late
Dr. Pulla Reddy Bolumpalli of Bowenpally, Secunderabad and
the land in Survey No.169/2 is classified as B-2 land under the
management of the State Government as per revenue records,
and the said Mr. M.A. Raheem constructed a pan tile house in
1962 and resided therein till 12.04.2007. Upon his death in
1989, his son Mr. M.A. Aleem succeeded to the property and
obtained building sanction for an area of 1071 square feet vide
Secunderabad Cantonment Board Resolution No.3(26) dated
28.04.1978 and constructed the house after demolishing the old
structure.
1.2. Sri M.A. Aleem executed a registered Gift Deed
dated 18.11.2006 bearing Document No.2330/2006 in favour of
his son Mr. Mohd. Azmath Aleem, who, in turn, sold the
property to (1) Mr. R. Narasimha Rao S/o Mr. R. Chandra Mouli,
(2) Ms. Rama Raju Anusha, (3) Sri M. Prashanth Babu, (4) Mr.
Mohd. Vasiuddin and (5) Mr. M. Santhosh vide registered Sale
Deed bearing Document No.701/2007 dated 12.04.2007, and
thereafter, Petitioner purchased the same under Sale Deed
dated 08.08.2018. After purchase, he made an Application
dated 04.02.2019 for mutation and the Secunderabad
Cantonment Board issued proceedings bearing
No.SCB/TS/Mutation/F/1019 dated 26.07.2019 mutating the
property in his name, assigning SCB House No.04-08-329 and
Petitioner has been paying property tax.
1.3. Petitioner intended to renovate the existing
structure, which was about 40 years old, and on the advice of
the Area Engineer, submitted the Application dated 18.11.2019,
which was refused vide letter dated 27.11.2019 on the ground
that the land falls in GLR Survey No.481/268 classified as B-4
vacant land under the management of the Cantonment Board.
According to petitioner, the said objection is contrary to the
earlier building sanction granted vide Resolution No.3(26) dated
28.04.1978 in respect of the same property and is inconsistent,
and the direction to resubmit plans indicates lack of certainty in
the Respondent's stand.
1.4. Upon representation, the Chief Executive Officer
addressed the letter dated 07.01.2020 to the Defence Estate
Officer seeking survey and no objection who vide letter dated
12.02.2020 clarified that the land falls in GLR Sy.No.474
classified as B-2 under State Government and that no defence
land is involved. Further, the District Collector, Hyderabad, vide
letter dated 01.05.2021, based on joint survey by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Secunderabad and Tahsildar, Tirumalgiri
Mandal, clarified that land admeasuring 119 square yards in
Sy.No.169/2 is classified as B-2 Patta and also noted that an
extent of 50 square yards falls in Sy.No.170 classified as "Abadi
Gramam Sarkari".
1.5. Despite such clarifications from two authorities that
the land does not belong to the Central Government,
Respondent failed to consider the same and continued to treat
the land as B-4 land, which amounts to non-application of
mind, contends petitioner. He is stated to have resubmitted
building plans on 23.06.2021, but Respondent again returned
the same vide letter dated 23.11.2022 stating that the land falls
within 40% layout area of South Central Railways Accounts
Cooperative Housing Society sanctioned vide CBR No.4(28)
dated 30.08.1972 under Section 236 of the Cantonments Act,
2006. The said stand is unjust in view of the earlier
clarifications and Petitioner obtained certified copy of the layout
sanction plan, which according to him shows that his land does
not fall within the said 40% layout area.
1.6. Respondent is taking inconsistent and divergent
stands despite having granted building permission in 1978 after
considering all aspects and after obtaining no objection from
South Central Railway Accounts Employees Co-operative
Housing Society Limited vide letter dated 01.12.1977. The
officials of Respondent stated that earlier sanction was under
old bye-laws and that as per present bye-laws, building
permission cannot be granted for 119 square yards and advised
minor alterations, pursuant to which Petitioner commenced
minor repairs. It is stated, on 06.02.2023 and 07.02.2023, the
officials namely Mr. Gopala Krishna Dass, Cantonment
Engineer, Mr. B. Balakrishna, Chief Cantonment Planner and
Mr. Bitra Jishnu Srinivas, Assistant Cantonment Planner along
with police protection from Marredpally Police Station, without
issuing notice under the Cantonments Act, 2006, demolished
part of the house, compound wall and the entire house and
erected a board stating that the land belongs to Secunderabad
Cantonment Board. The demolition was carried out under cover
of letter dated 06.02.2023 and the value of the demolished
structure is Rs.50,09,900/-.
1.7. Petitioner is stated to have issued legal notice dated
10.02.2023 seeking reconstruction of the house, but
Respondent remained silent and later issued reply during
pendency of Writ Petition No. 32228 of 2023. It is claimed,
petitioner suffered immense loss, building was habitable and
Respondent having earlier granted sanction and mutation could
not now take a contrary stand, and that the adjacent Railway
Colony layout is an ungifted land layout where the concept of
40% gifted land does not arise.
1.8. Petitioner is stated to have incurred Rs.46,00,000/-
for purchase of the property and is entitled to damages of
Rs.50,09,900/- along with further damages and sought action
against officials vide letter dated 24.07.2023, asserting vicarious
liability of Respondent. He is entitled to building permission at
least as per earlier sanction dated 28.04.1978 and Respondent
is barred from objecting. Petitioner obtained bore-well
permission in March 2023 and when bore-well digging
commenced on 13.08.2023, the Area Engineer Mr. Bitra Jishnu
Srinivas stopped the work abruptly, causing financial loss.
1.9. It is stated, petitioner submitted on line building
Application dated 07.11.2023 which was rejected on the same
day without considering documents and also submitted physical
Application on 08.11.2023, and though initially no written order
was given, later refusal was issued vide letter dated 15.11.2023.
The rejection and stopping of bore-well work are arbitrary,
without notice, without reasons and constitute abuse of power.
1.10. Earlier Writ Petition No. 32228 of 2023 was filed
and this Court by order dated 03.05.2024 directed
consideration of representation dated 10.04.2024, but
Respondent again rejected the application vide speaking order
dated 19.08.2024. Thereafter, Petitioner withdrew the said Writ
Petition pursuant to order dated 13.11.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024
and filed the present Writ Petition challenging the refusal dated
19.08.2024 and earlier refusals. The impugned actions
including refusal orders dated 27.11.2019, 23.11.2022,
07.11.2023, 15.11.2023 and 19.08.2024, demolition of
structure and stopping of bore-well are arbitrary, illegal,
violative of principles of natural justice and infringe Articles 14,
21 and 300-A of the Constitution, and therefore liable to be set
aside.
2. Respondent filed counter affidavit contending that
subject property forms part of 40% open space of the layout of
South Central Railway Accounts Co-operative Housing Society
Limited sanctioned vide Cantonment Board Resolution No.4(28)
dated 30.08.1972. The said 40% layout area comprises roads,
lanes, open spaces and parks, and the same vests with the
Secunderabad Cantonment Board as absolute owner under
Section 108 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and Section 122 of
the Cantonments Act, 2006. As per the layout, the subject land
is earmarked as open space wherein septic tanks are located for
the benefit of members of the Society and the general public,
and therefore the land is meant for public purpose. In view of
such vesting and classification, Respondent had rightly rejected
the building Applications of Petitioner and passed a speaking
order dated 19.08.2024 pursuant to the interim order dated
03.05.2024 in Writ Petition No.32228 of 2023.
2.1. Respondent does not dispute the chain of
transactions narrated by Petitioner, including the earlier
sanction dated 28.04.1978, but contends that the said sanction
was only in respect of land admeasuring 1071 square feet i.e.
119 square yards in the name of Mr. M.A. Aleem. The said land
of 119 square yards is distinct and not part of 40% open space
of the layout, and Petitioner is wrongly claiming an extent of
176.66 square yards. It is stated, M.A. Aleem, having right only
over 119 square yards, executed a Gift Deed dated 18.11.2006
in favour of his son Mr. Mohd. Azmath Aleem for an extent of
215 square yards, which is in excess of his entitlement and
without right, title or interest. The said Mr. Mohd. Azmath
Aleem, in turn, sold 176.66 square yards out of the said 215
square yards to Mr. P. Narasimha Rao and others and retained
38.34 square yards, though he was entitled to convey only 119
square yards.
2.2. After excluding the retained extent of 38.34 square
yards, the actual extent available out of 119 square yards would
be only 80.44 square yards, and therefore, the subsequent sale
of 176.66 square yards is illegal and not binding. It is stated, it
is a settled principle of law that a vendor cannot convey better
title than what he possesses, therefore, the Sale Deed dated
08.08.2018 relied upon by Petitioner does not confer any valid
right over the extent claimed. The mutation proceedings dated
26.07.2019 are only for taxation purposes and do not confer
any right, title or interest over the property, and mutation order
itself clearly states that it does not validate any unauthorized
construction or encroachment and is without prejudice to the
rights of the Cantonment Board or Government of India.
2.3. Petitioner's contention regarding demolition is
denied and it is specifically stated that no structure existed on
the subject property at the relevant time and Petitioner had
encroached upon vacant land belonging to Respondent. He
attempted to erect temporary structures and compound wall on
the open land of the sanctioned layout where septic tanks are
situated, and upon noticing such encroachment, Respondent
prevented the same in accordance with law. Respondent erected
a signboard stating that 'land belongs to Cantonment Board,
trespassers will be prosecuted', which was later defaced by
Petitioner, necessitating a complaint to the police. The allegation
of demolition of a house and compound wall on 06.02.2023 and
07.02.2023 is false, and no documentary evidence has been
produced by Petitioner to substantiate the alleged loss of
Rs.50,09,900/-.
2.4. Petitioner's claim of having incurred Rs.46,00,000/-
for purchase of property and claim for damages are denied as
false and baseless. The subject property falls within the
jurisdiction of Respondent Board and digging of bore-well is
regulated under Section 204(4) of the Cantonments Act, 2006,
and no permission was obtained from the Respondent Board. It
is also stated, the permission obtained by Petitioner from the
Tahsildar, Tirumalgiri Mandal vide letter dated 03.2023 is not
binding on the Respondent Board. When Petitioner commenced
bore-well digging on 13.08.2023 without permission of the
Board and on land forming part of the sanctioned layout, the
officials of Respondent Board lawfully stopped the same.
According to this respondent, all the building Applications
submitted by Petitioner including the one dated 18.11.2019,
resubmitted plan dated 23.06.2021, Application leading to
rejection dated 23.11.2022, on line Application dated
07.11.2023 and physical Application dated 08.11.2023 were
duly considered and rejected by assigning reasons within the
timelines prescribed under the Cantonments Act, 2006.
2.5. The rejection dated 07.11.2023 and subsequent
written refusal dated 15.11.2023 were based on the ground that
the land forms part of 40% layout area vested with the
Respondent Board and earmarked for public purpose.
Respondent complied with the directions of this Court dated
03.05.2024 and passed a detailed speaking order dated
19.08.2024. Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 32228
of 2023 and obtained interim order dated 07.11.2023 directing
status quo, and thereafter withdrew the same on 13.11.2024
after the speaking order dated 19.08.2024 was passed. Hence,
the present Writ Petition is repetition of the earlier writ petition
without raising any new grounds and is therefore, not
maintainable. According to the Board, the issues involved relate
to disputed questions of title, extent and possession of
immovable property, which require adjudication by a competent
civil Court and cannot be decided in proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard Sri Ch. Venu Kumar, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing
Counsel for respondent Board.
4. A perusal of the material on record shows that the
controversy revolves around the title, extent, classification and
nature of the subject property bearing H.No.04-08-329 situated
in Survey No.169/2, Secunderabad Cantonment. Petitioner
asserts absolute ownership and possession over an extent of
176.66 square yards on the strength of registered sale deed
dated 08.08.2018 coupled with mutation proceedings dated
26.07.2019. On the other hand, Respondent disputes not only
the extent claimed by Petitioner but also to the very title of
Petitioner by contending that the land forms part of 40% open
space of the layout of South Central Railway Accounts Co-
operative Housing Society Limited sanctioned vide CBR No.4(28)
dated 30.08.1972 and vests in the Respondent Board.
5. Respondent has further specifically pleaded that the
predecessor-in-title of Petitioner, namely Mr. M.A. Aleem, had
rights only over an extent of 119 square yards pursuant to
sanction granted vide Resolution No.3(26) dated 28.04.1978,
and that subsequent transactions, including the Gift Deed
dated 18.11.2006 and Sale Deed dated 12.04.2007, purported
to convey an extent far in excess of such entitlement, thereby
rendering the Petitioner's claim over 176.66 square yards legally
untenable. In addition to the above, Respondent asserts
statutory vesting of subject land under Section 122 of the
Cantonments Act, 2006 (and earlier under Section 108 of the
Cantonments Act, 1924), contending that the land constitutes
part of the layout open space earmarked for public purposes
such as roads, open spaces and septic tanks.
6. Thus, this Court is confronted with serious and
complex questions relating to (i) validity of title claimed by
Petitioner, (ii) actual extent of land legally available to Petitioner,
(iii) classification of land as B-2 or otherwise, (iv) applicability of
layout restrictions and vesting, and (v) legality of successive
conveyances. These questions are not merely incidental but go
to the root of the matter and require detailed examination of
documentary evidence, including title deeds, revenue records,
layout plans, survey reports and other materials, which cannot
be satisfactorily adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
7. It is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is not
intended for adjudication of disputed questions of title and fact
requiring appreciation of evidence. In the present case, the
dispute is not a simple administrative challenge but a complex
civil dispute relating to immovable property rights. Insofar as
the allegation of demolition without notice is concerned,
petitioner asserts that Respondent's officials demolished part of
the house and compound wall on 06.02.2023 and 07.02.2023
without issuing notice under the 2006 Act and caused loss of
Rs.50,09,900/-. However, Respondent has categorically denied
the existence of any structure and has asserted that the land
was vacant and that the Petitioner had attempted to encroach
upon the same. Thus, the very existence of a structure, its
legality and the alleged act of demolition are seriously disputed
factual issues which cannot be resolved without leading
evidence. Such issues are clearly beyond the scope of writ
jurisdiction.
8. Similarly, Petitioner's claim for damages and
compensation on account of alleged demolition also hinges upon
proof of existence of structure, legality of construction and
nature of possession, all of which are matters requiring
adjudication before a competent civil forum. Insofar as refusal of
building permissions is concerned, it is evident from the record
that Respondent has consistently taken the stand that subject
land forms part of 40% layout area vested in the Cantonment
Board and earmarked for public purposes. On such premise,
Respondent rejected Petitioner's Applications vide proceedings
dated 27.11.2019, 23.11.2022, 07.11.2023, 15.11.2023 and
speaking order dated 19.08.2024.
9. It is to be noted, the entitlement of Petitioner to
seek building permission is intrinsically dependent upon
establishing his lawful title and right over the subject land.
Unless Petitioner establishes that land does not form part of the
vested layout area and that he has valid title over the entire
extent claimed, no mandamus can be issued directing the
Respondent to grant building permission. With regard to the
stoppage of bore-well digging, Respondent had relied upon
Section 204(4) of the 2006 Act, contending that prior
permission of the Board is mandatory and that the permission
obtained from the Tahsildar is not binding on the Board. In the
absence of undisputed material demonstrating compliance with
statutory requirements, the action of Respondent in preventing
bore-well digging cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
10. Further, the mutation proceedings dated
26.07.2019 relied upon by Petitioner are specifically explained
by the Respondent as being for taxation purposes only and not
conferring any right, title or interest. It is a settled principle that
mutation entries do not create or extinguish title and are only
for fiscal purposes. Therefore, the reliance placed by Petitioner
on mutation does not advance his case in the absence of clear
title.
11. This Court also takes note of the fact that earlier
proceedings in Writ Petition No.32228 of 2023 culminated in the
order dated 03.05.2024 directing consideration of Petitioner's
representation, pursuant to which Respondent passed a
detailed speaking order dated 19.08.2024 assigning reasons for
rejection. The said speaking order is one of the impugned
proceedings in the present Writ Petition. Respondent asserts
that the same was passed strictly in compliance with the
directions of this Court.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the entire dispute raised by Petitioner is
essentially civil in nature involving adjudication of title, extent,
possession and legality of transactions relating to immovable
property. Such disputes require comprehensive adjudication
based on evidence, which is not permissible in writ proceedings.
This Court therefore, holds that Writ Petition is not
maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that dismissal of Writ Petition shall
not preclude Petitioner from availing appropriate remedies
before a competent civil Court in accordance with law. No costs.
14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
07th April 2026
ksld
