Telangana High Court
Mr. N. S. Chary, vs Union. Of India, on 13 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.33750 of 2016
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"....o issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the 2nd respondent herein in not considering the application of the Petitioner 30.9.2010 for sanctioning the building plan on one pretext or the other giving out untenable reasons while failing on their part to evict the illegal occupants from the place earmarked for Green-Belt abutting foot path on the side of the petitioner's Plot No.10 in Survey No.69 admeasuring 307 Sq.yards situated at West Maredpally, Secunderabad as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith evict the illegal encroachers and accord building permission in favour of the Petitioner for over the Plot No.10 in Survey No.69 admeasuring 307 Sq.yards situated at West Maredpally, Secunderabad in the interest of justice...."
,,,,
2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of plot No.10 in Survey No.69 admeasuring 307 Sq.yards situated at West Maredpally, Secunderabad, having purchased the same under registered sale deed vide document No.550 of 1992. It is the further case of the petitioner that the land in Survey No.69 was converted for non-agriculture purpose and thereafter, layout was sanctioned by the authorities vide No.27, dated 24.08.1978 and as per the sanctioned layout, the land has been divided into plots and one 2 such plot i.e. Plot No.10 has been purchased by him. It is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted an application, dated 30.09.2010 before the respondent Board seeking building permission by duly enclosing all the documents, but the said application was rejected vide proceedings No.SCB/EP/PMIM/Ram Nagar/Picket/372/2609, dated 26.10.2010 stating that the subject house site does not fall under the sanctioned layout and there was no layout sanctioned for dividing the lands into plots and the said plot is abutting main road, which is earmarked as Green-Belt by the respondent Board and was occupied by unauthorized occupants illegally. It is the further case of the petitioner that he submitted a letter by enclosing a copy of the sanctioned layout vide proceedings No.CBR 27, dated 24.08.1978 issued by the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad and also made representations, dated 31.10.2012 and 19.01.2016 before the Chief Executive Officer of the respondent-Board seeking for grant of construction permission and for removal of the illegal structures, enabling the sanction of the building permission. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent-Board having granted 3 permission to other plot owners in the very same layout, has rejected to grant building permission to the petitioner.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is stated that respondent No.2 has already considered the application of the petitioner and returned the same with certain objections vide letter dated 26.10.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner re-presented the same without complying the objections raised. It is further stated that the said application was again returned vide letter dated 26.11.2011 and made clear that the application cannot be considered as the earlier objections were not complied with. It is also stated that any relief by virtue of representation, dated 19.01.2016 will not create any fresh cause of action to accord sanction of building plan.
5. Since it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent- Board has granted permission to all other plot owners in the very same layout, the respondents are directed to examine the application, dated 31.10.2012 submitted by the petitioner and if such an application is not available on record, the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh application enclosing all the necessary documents and if it is found that the subject land 4 forms part of the said layout, the respondents are directed to consider the said application in accordance with the Cantonments Act, 2006.
6. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
7. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 13.08.2024 sus