K V NARASIMHA REDDY Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash the proceedings in 300957/Appeal/40/Narasimha Reddy/Q(L), dated 05.09.2013, of respondent No.2, whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the notice, dated 23.02.2007, issued by respondent No.1 for removal of the unauthorised constructions made by the petitioner.

(2.) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the counsel for the petitioner has conceded before respondent No.2 that there was increase in FSI over and above that sanctioned by respondent No.1 and that the building was constructed without adhering to the required set backs as per the sanctioned plan. The appellate authority recorded the following violations:

(3.) Sri D.Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly not disputing the findings of respondent No.2, however, drew my attention to the first proviso to Section 248(1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'), whereunder the Cantonment Board is empowered to compound the violations by accepting such sums as it thinks reasonable, instead of requiring the alteration or demolition of any such building or part thereof. He has also submitted under the second proviso thereof, permission of respondent No.2, who is the appellate authority is mandatory for compounding the violations by the Cantonment Board. The learned counsel argued that respondent No.2 himself ought to have considered the petitioner's request for compounding and that he failed to advert to this aspect even though a specific ground has been raised in the appeal.