R N NARSING RAO Vs. T K KODANDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) The questions writ large are - has any unauthorised construction in violation of the law applied to the Cantonment area been made, and has the Cantonment Board jurisdiction to remove unauthorised construction. Action in the instant proceed ing has started at the instance of a person who does not have any interest of his own in the property upon which alleged illegal construction has been made. The Court has noticed the argument that there is no dispute as to the title of the appellant herein and has observed, issue of title is not available for any decision by the Cantonment Board. It is indeed a proceeding which has revealed the loopholes, which appear big when some persons take litigation from Court to Court and either confuse the whole matter or successfully avoid action by the competent authority to undo the illegalities committed by them. By litigating from Court to Court, the appellant herein has seen to it that for quite a few years the Cantonment Board has to sit without taking any action for the removal of unauthorised construction. Learned single Judge has only stated the obvious, when he has directed the Cantonment Board to take action in accordance with law and afford opportunity to all concerned, including the appellant herein, of being heard before taking action for removal of encroachment. There is some attempt before us, however, to suggest that all proceedings before the Cantonment Board should await the decision on the question of title and that should be decided in a competent court of law. There is also an attempt before us to suggest that the Court has issued a direction to the Cantonment Board, if after hearing the parties, it is satisfied that there is encroachment, to remove the encroachment. We are, however, satisfied that nothing should wait, and unauthorised constructions should be cleared as fast as possible. There can be unauthorised construction in violation of the rules, regulations, by-laws etc., even by the owner of the property. Laws' discretions are meant for the benefit of the public and not the individuals who violate laws. Further, without affecting the public at large and/or others whose rights, besides the title, are likely to be affected, direction is exercised only in favour of removal of encroachments. We do not find any error in the direction in this behalf, which learned single Judge has issued. We have found no merit in the appeal.

(3.) The appeal is accordingly dismissed.