S VIJAYA RAMA RAO Vs. SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners claim to be owners of residential plots bearing Nos.26/1, 26/2 and 26/3 in GLR Survey No.625, Vighneswara Co-operative Housing Society, Sikh Road, Secunderabad, respectively. According to them the land forms part of approved layout of M/s. Vighneswara Cooperative Housing Society Limited (for short, the Society). The petitioners made an application on 18.7.1992 under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act 1924 (for short, the Act) informing the respondents their intention to construct residential houses and submitted plans with the application/notice. The respondent returned the same on 19.9.1992 on the ground that a writ petition, being W.P. No. 18389 of 1989 filed by some of the members of the Society questioning the revised layout plan, is pending before the High Court. The petitioners alleged that they waited for a period of thirty days and having not received any rejection order proceeded with the construction under "deemed permission" in accordance with the building plan. They also alleged that they informed the respondent for the purpose of payment of property tax. In the meanwhile, some of the members of the society filed W.P.No. 18389 of 1989 questioning the revised layout plan. The respondent issued notice under subsection (1) of Section 185 dated 25.2.1993, directing the first petition and his vendor to demolish the unauthorized constructions. The petitioners however were not aware of the same, as they were under the impression that they are entitled to construct building under deemed permission. Finally, on 31.8.2000 the respondent issued notice under Section 256 of the Act directing demolition of the residential building, aggrieved by which present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The respondent filed a counter- affidavit. It is stated that after receiving building application for sanction under Section 179 of the Act, the respondent returned the same informing that a Court case is pending with regard to layout. The petitioner thereafter never represented the plan, but started construction. Therefore, on 25.2.1993 a notice under Section 185(1) of the Act was issued to remove the unauthorized construction on their own. Instead of complying with the same, the petitioners illegally made construction and completed the work of construction of ground floor, first and second floors. The same was detected on 22.10.1992 and therefore a statutory notice was issued under Section 185(1) of the Act. It is further alleged that no such application was made with regard to plot No.26/3, but application was made only in respect of plot Nos.26/1 and 26/2. In spite of the same, petitioners did not comply with the notice and therefore a final notice under Section 256 of the Act was issued for demolition of the un-authorized construction.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent never rejected building plan and therefore the petitioners are entitled to proceed with the construction under Section 181(6) of the Act. Secondly, he would urge that in the absence of notice under Section 185(1) of the Act, notice under Section 256 of the Act cannot be issued. The learned Counsel also submits that the action of the respondent Cantonment Board in ordering demolition after expiry of a period of twelve months after completion of the building is illegal.