Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The point is answered accordingly.

Point No. 3:

18. In the light of our decision in respect of Point No.2, this point is found against the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be said to have obtained any deemed sanction for the proposals for erection or any structures after demolition of the old structures pursuant to her application to the Board dated 19-9-1980, consequent upon the notice sent to the Board by her dated 11-11-1980 or the one dated 2-3-1981.

19. The learned single Judge has extended the petitioner liberty of making an application to the Board for considering unlawful constructions made by her for composition after imposition of any composition fees. The judgment ordains that such an application may be made by the petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment i.e., 14-10-1987. At the hearing of the appeal Sri K. Subrahmanya Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, placed before us a letter Ref.No.EB/B211/UAC/2143, dated 10-5-1999, addressed to him by the Executive Officer of the respondent-Board. The said letter states that no application for composition of unauthorised constructions in respect of the premises comprising the petitioner's property was received by the Board's office. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that no such application has been made to the Board. The petitioner has consciously taken this decision not to avail of the opportunity afforded to her in the judgment under appeal. In the circumstances the conduct of the petitioner does not entitle any further grant of time by this Court for making any such application. The respondent-Board would however, be within its rights, should it so choose, to entertain any such application and dispose it of in accordance with law, if made by the petitioner.