Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. Naseem Sultana vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board Rep By ... on 7 February, 2013
Author: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Bench: C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.3581 of 2013 and Batch 07.02.2013 Smt. Naseem Sultana Secunderabad Cantonment Board rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Court House Compound, S.P.Road, Secunderabad-500 003 and another Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Peri Prabhakar Counsel for the respondents : Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board <Gist: >Head Note ?Cases referred: Common Order:
These Writ Petitions raise common issues of fact and law. Hence, they are disposed of by common order.
I have heard Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, representing the respondents.
The petitioners are in occupation of small pieces of land with constructions thereon. Respondent No.2 has issued the impugned notices whereunder he has observed that it was brought to his notice that the petitioners have occupied the Government Property situated in GLR Sy.Nos.574/210 and 574/107, Pension Lines, Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, unauthorizedly and that as the said property belongs to the Ministry of Defence under the management of Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, trespassing or encroaching the same constitutes serious offence. Respondent No.2 called upon the petitioners to vacate the premises in their occupation within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 has no authority or jurisdiction to evict them, even if they are in unauthorized occupation of the property allegedly belonging to the Government of India.
As rightly pleaded by the petitioners, the powers and duties of respondent No.2 are enumerated under Section 25 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'). The learned Standing Counsel for the Secunderabad Cantonment Board has not disputed that the power to evict the illegal occupants of the Government lands is not included in any of the powers or duties of a C.E.O. under the abovementioned provision. Unless a statutory functionary is vested with power by the provisions of the Statute, under which he holds the office, such Officer cannot usurp any power, which is not vested in him. In the absence of any power vested in respondent No.2 either in express terms or by necessary implication by the provisions of the Act, respondent No.2 is denuded of the authority to evict the alleged unauthorized occupants of Government Properties. Respondent No.2 can only take appropriate action under the provisions such as Sections 239, 248, 249, 253 and 257 of the Act in respect of unauthorized constructions or the constructions made in deviation of the sanctioned plans.
For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned notices are without jurisdiction and they are, accordingly, set-aside. However, this Order shall not preclude respondent No.2 from initiating appropriate action within his powers under the Act, if he finds that the petitioners or any of them have raised any illegal constructions.
The Writ Petitions are, accordingly, allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of these Writ Petitions, interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand disposed of as infructuous. _______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt: 07-02-2013