G DEVENDRANATH Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This litigation has a long and chequered history of several petitioners coming to this Court, the main thrust being that several persons occupied or grabbed lands belonging to the Government of the State and/or the Union of India and in particular in the case of at the first instance by one T. K. Kodanda Ram, who claimed/claims to be the Chairman of the Weavers Educational Advancement Vocational Economic Rehabilitation Society, in Writ Petitioner No. 15144 of 1985 this Court ordered in W. P. M. P. No. 21049 of 1985 on 31-12-1995 that the Station House Officer, Maredpalli Police Station, Secunderabad and the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, would take action according to law. While so, there have been civil suits filed and contested by various parties and if the events in this behalf are recapitulated, finally in a batch of Writ Petitions in Writ Petition No. 13352 of 1993 and other cases, Justice N. Y. Hanumanthappa ordered on 10-2-1995 that all unauthorised constructions which were reflected in the report of the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board should be removed. Directions in Writ Petition No. 13352 of 1993 and other cases were affirmed by a Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 659 of 1995 and it is not in dispute, pursuant to the said directions, all other encroachments have been removed except insofar as the building in Picket, Secunderabad in respect of which building the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 6742, 6772, 6773, 6774, 7101 and 9804 of 1997 have filed petitions seeking Court's intervention to stop demolition on various grounds. Mr. T. K. Kodanda Ram, however, filed Writ Petition No. 8162 of 1997 reiterating, inter alia, that the direction for the enquiry and consequent direction for removal of encroachments are valid to the extent of removal of encroachers and/or the land grabbers, but not in respect in the ownership of the land in question, as the Society which he purportedly represents, according to him, is the real owner of the property and restoration, therefore, of the property pursuant to the enquiry report to the Cantonment Board shall adversely affect the Society's right to the property. He has filed Writ Petition No. 4632 of 1997 alleging that the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board has installed a transformer almost encroaching the road leading to his house and obstructed thus the free flow of traffic on a public path way by an unauthorised act.

(2.) Implementation of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13352 of 1993 and other cases as affirmed by Writ Appeal No. 659 of 1995, is complete, we are informed, except insofar as the Picket Castle is concerned in respect of which in the instant proceedings, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has directed for maintaining status quo.

(3.) We are spared, however, of a detailed and serious predication of either the facts or the laws except insofar as they are necessary for the directions, which, by consensus at the Bar, are decided to be issued. The apartments called 'Picket Castle' are constructed by a Builder - M/s. M.R.N. Constructions, which incidentally also represent the alleged owner of the land having Power of Attorney on their behalf. They have sold apartments to as many as 54 persons. When orders were issued to remove encroachments and the Cantonment Board started action to occupy vacant areas including vacant apartments in the Picket Castle before actual removal of encroachments, it came in occupation of one apartment which was vacant and took possession of some shops which were not yet been transferred to any person by the Builder.