Telangana High Court
WP/37256/2013 of Ike Swamy, Vs Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 30 December 2013
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND THIRTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.37256 of 2013 Between: Ike Swamy & 3 others .. Petitioners And Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, Rep. by Chief
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSANDAND THIRTEEN
PresentHON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.37256 of 2013
Between:
Ike Swamy & 3 others
.. Petitioners
And
Cantonment Board, Secunderabad,Rep. by Chief Executive Officer,Secunderabad & 2 others
.. Respondents
This Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners andpossessors of Bungalow bearing Nos.186/C, 186/B, 186/D, and 186/A toan extent of Ac. 4.05 guntas, Ac.3.35 guntas, Ac. 2.38 guntas and Ac.2.26 guntas respectively forming part of Bungalow No.186 in Sy.No.270,situated at Bowenpally, Secunderabad, and the Cantonment Board isseeking to demolish the building without following due process of law.
Sri Challa Sitaramaiah, learned senior counsel submits that therespondent/Cantonment Board is unnecessarily interfering with thepossession and enjoyment of the property and also threatening to demolish the property owned by the petitioners compelling them toinstitute this writ petition. The petitioners traced the history of earlierlitigation and also the manner in which title has accrued to them.
On the same issue, the petitioners earlier instituted O.S.Nos.593,594, 595 and 506 of 2013, on the file of the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, seeking a relief thatthe respondents be restrained from interfering or demolishing with theexisting structures in the property purchased by the petitioners. TheJunior Civil Judge, by an order, dated 29.11.2013, in I.A.No.1536 of 2013in O.S.No.594 of 2013, directed that both parties shall maintain status quoupto 03.12.2013 and the same was extended till 19.12.2013. However, onadvice, the petitioners instituted this writ petition, as remedy under Article226 of the Constitution of India is an efficacious remedy. The matter wasadjourned on the earlier occasion to enable the petitioners to withdrawO.S.Nos.593, 594, 595 and 506 of 2013, on the file of the XI Junior CivilJudge, C i t y Civil Court, Secunderabad, as the petitioners cannotprosecute two remedies simultaneously.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that todayI.A(SR).No.5762 of 2013 in O.S.No.596 of 2013, I.A(SR).No.5759 of 2013in O.S.No.593 of 2013, I.A(SR).No.5761 of 2013 in O.S.No.595 of 2013and I.A(SR).No.5760 of 2013 in O.S.No.594 of 2013 are moved before theXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for withdrawal ofsuits and the suits are to be dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned standing counsel for the respondent/Cantonment Boardsubmits that without following due process, no building is proposed fordemolition.
Having regard to the submissions of learned senior counsel forpetitioners and learned standing counsel, it is expected that CantonmentBoard shall follow the procedure as contemplated by Cantonment Act,2006, before taking any adverse action against the owners of theproperties including the petitioners. However, it is made clear that if the procedure as mandated by the Cantonment Act, 2006, is followed and dueopportunity is afforded to the petitioners, this order does not preclude theCantonment Board in taking appropriate further action as warranted bylaw. It is also made clear that following due procedure, the CantonmentBoard is competent to take further action as warranted by law.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writpetition shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICEP.NAVEEN RAO
Date: 30[th] December, 2013KL
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
KL
Date: 30[th] December, 2013