EXECUTIVE OFFICER SECUNDRABAD CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. AURO SWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these two appeals arise out of the same order passed by the Court below, they have been taken up together for disposal.

(2.) Heard Sri K.R. Koteswara Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant in C.M.A. No.41 of 2007, Sri A. Raja Sekhar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of the appellants in CMA No.83 of 2007 and Sri B. Vijaysen Reddy appearing on behalf of the learned Counsel Sri M. Govind Reddy for the respondents/ plaintiffs.

(3.) The briefly stated facts giving raise to these proceedings are that the respondents/ plaintiffs had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against both the appellants who are arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 respectively restraining them from interfering with the construction activity carried on by the respondent/plaintiffs. Pending the said suit, the appellants had filed the present applications seeking for the selfsame relief though as an ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit The case of the appellant/ plaintiffs in the suit and as well as the affidavit filed in support of the application is to the effect that they are the owners of various portions in premises bearing Nos.186, 186/A, 186/A/1, 186/B in Sy. No.270 situated in Thokatta Village, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. Having purchased the same under three different registered sale deeds from the previous owners and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment and paying the taxes as well. A part of the property is being used by them for running a small scale industry for manufacture of cement hollow bricks, jallis, doors and window frames etc., for which no objection has been granted by defendant No.2-the Cantonment Board in respect of the premises bearing No.186, Thokatta Village, Bowenpally Secunderabad. That apart, there are several other constructions which are existing in the very same property. Since the plaintiff deal in motor cycles and other vehicles they applied for dealership of Maruthi Udyog Limited and who after negotiations issued a Letter of Intent dated 20-5-2006 appointing them as a dealer and approving the suit premises to be used as a showroom and as a workshop. Of the said authorization, the area selected by the Maruthi Udyog Limited for the workshop is located in the aforesaid premises. Therefore, plaintiff No.4 applied to defendant No.1 on 27-4-2006 for grant of licence to run the workshop and also applied to defendant No.2 on 26-7-2006 for permission to erect temporary structure for the said purpose. However, no objection has been raised nor there is any refusal on their part. In view of the said silence, it is stated that the permission is deemed to have been granted after expiry of the statutory period, therefore, they had commenced erection of the sheds in September, 2006. While the work was in progress the officials of defendants 1 and 2 without any prior notice or intimation came to the spot on 29-9-2006 and demolished the structure and carried away the construction machinery. The said action according to the plaintiffs is contrary to the provisions of the law and especially that of the Cantonments Act, as no notice of show-cause has been issued, therefore, entire such action on their part is totally illegal. Further, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the nature of structure which they are erecting is purely a temporary in its nature and therefore there is no impediment in making such temporary construction or erection and thus either of the defendants 1 and 2 have any authority in law to take such one sided action. Hence, the suit and hence, the application.