WP/8311/2005 of Mr.Bhimsen, S/o. Jaya Rao Patil, Vs The Executive Officer, on 23 December 2005

O R D E R :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by Mr.Bhimsen and M/s.Gangothri Builders andDevelopers praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned notice inLr.No.EB/III/P. No.20/Sanjivaiah CHS/61/1481, dated 31.3.2005 issued by therespondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the same and consequentlydirect the respondent to sanction building permission as sought for by them in theapplication dated 22.1.2005.

2. Mr.Bhimsen purchased plot Nos.20 and 21 under a registered sale deed dated28.10.2004 from K.Sheela, K.Anasuya Bai and M/s Gayathri Constructions.Subsequently, MR.Bhimsen entered into a development agreement with 2[nd]petitioner i.e. N/s Gangothri Builders and Developers. A building permissionapplication has been submitted to the respondent by the petitioner. The respondentrefused to entertain the building permission request by an order-dated 31.3.2005,which reads as under:

“ In this connection, this is to inform you, that, your above referred applicationcannot be considered for the following reasons:cannot be considered for the following reasons:

1.

2. The subject property bearing Plot No.20 and 21 stands in thename of Smt.K.Sheela, W/o. Shri K.Jayaraj as per the recordsavailable in this office. Shri.K.Jayaraj, Ex-Foreman,Seunderabad Cantonment Board was dismissed from servicewith effect from 23.11.2000 and this office ordered to recoverthe loss of Rs.249.39 lakhs from him as per rules andregulations vide this office order dated 27.5.2003.

The Cantonment Board in its meeting held on 21.12.2004 hasresolved that the matter be taken up with the CBI for takingfurther necessary action by furnishing full details of theproperty bearing Plot Nos.20 and 21, Sanjiviah Nagar CHS,Akbar Road, Secunderabad Cantonment so as to recover theloss of Rs.249.39 lakhs from Shri.K.Jayaraj, Ex-Foreman,Secunderabad Cantonment Board. This office has alreadyinitiated for recovery as above.

In view of the above facts your building plans cannot be consideredat this stage and returned herewith un-actioned.”

3. Respondent filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that K.Jayarajan ex-employee of the respondent-Board caused loss to the respondent-Board andsold the plots in question in favour of 1[st] petitioner. Para 5 of the counter reads asunder:

“ 5. It is respectfully submitted that Sri.K.Jayaraj being an Ex-employee of theSec’bad Cantonment Board with a view to cause loss to theCantonment Board cleverly sold the said two plots bearing Plot Nos.20and 21 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and executed a registered saledeed dt.28.10.2004. While this being so, to enable the petitionersherein to submit their own applications seeking permission forconstruction on the subject plots, submitted a letter throughMr.Devender Rao, the G.P.A. holder of Smt.K.Sheel andSmt.K.Anasuyabai dt.3.12.2004 and requested the respondent hereinseeking permission to withdraw the building applications submitted onplot Nos.20 & 21 and without waiting from the order of respondent,subsequently based on registered sale deeds of the petitioners hereinsubmitted a fresh building application for sanction on the sameproperty and the same was returned by the respondent by passing theimpugned orders dated 31.3.2005. The above stated factscategorically reveals that Sri.K.Jayaraj being a beneficiary of theproperty bearing Plot Nos.20 and 21 through his wife and another soldhis property to the petitioners so as to prevent appropriation of hisproperty for the loss caused to the Cantonment Board and alienatedthe said property in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitionersherein and their vendors including Sri.k.Jayaraj are colluded togetherand created the registered sale deed dt.28.10.2004 in favour of thepetitioners only to cause monetary loss to the respondent Board.Except this property, there is no other property stands in the name ofSri.K.Jayaraj and his family members to recover the amounts liable topay by Sri.K.Jayaraj. Therefore, in order to protect the CantonmentBoard, Secunderabad interest, the respondent herein rightly rejectedthe applications submitted for permission to construct building in PlotNos.20 and 21 and the impugned order is valid and enforceable in theeye of law. The respondent herein has not committed any illegality inissuing the impugned order as alleged by the petitioners and it is thepetitioners who by hand in glove with Sri.K.Jayaraj and their vendorshave created a sale deed in favour of the petitioners which is nonest inthe eye of law as the proceedings wee initiated prior to the executionof the sale deeds on the subject property bearing plot Nos.20 and 21.Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for inthe writ petition.”Sec’bad Cantonment Board with a view to cause loss to theCantonment Board cleverly sold the said two plots bearing Plot Nos.20and 21 in favour of the petitioner No.1 and executed a registered saledeed dt.28.10.2004. While this being so, to enable the petitionersherein to submit their own applications seeking permission forconstruction on the subject plots, submitted a letter throughMr.Devender Rao, the G.P.A. holder of Smt.K.Sheel andSmt.K.Anasuyabai dt.3.12.2004 and requested the respondent hereinseeking permission to withdraw the building applications submitted onplot Nos.20 & 21 and without waiting from the order of respondent,subsequently based on registered sale deeds of the petitioners hereinsubmitted a fresh building application for sanction on the sameproperty and the same was returned by the respondent by passing theimpugned orders dated 31.3.2005. The above stated factscategorically reveals that Sri.K.Jayaraj being a beneficiary of theproperty bearing Plot Nos.20 and 21 through his wife and another soldhis property to the petitioners so as to prevent appropriation of hisproperty for the loss caused to the Cantonment Board and alienatedthe said property in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitionersherein and their vendors including Sri.k.Jayaraj are colluded togetherand created the registered sale deed dt.28.10.2004 in favour of thepetitioners only to cause monetary loss to the respondent Board.Except this property, there is no other property stands in the name ofSri.K.Jayaraj and his family members to recover the amounts liable topay by Sri.K.Jayaraj

. The above stated factscategorically reveals that Sri.K.Jayaraj being a beneficiary of theproperty bearing Plot Nos.20 and 21 through his wife and another soldhis property to the petitioners so as to prevent appropriation of hisproperty for the loss caused to the Cantonment Board and alienatedthe said property in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitionersherein and their vendors including Sri.k.Jayaraj are colluded togetherand created the registered sale deed dt.28.10.2004 in favour of thepetitioners only to cause monetary loss to the respondent Board.Except this property, there is no other property stands in the name ofSri.K.Jayaraj and his family members to recover the amounts liable topay by Sri.K.Jayaraj. Therefore, in order to protect the CantonmentBoard, Secunderabad interest, the respondent herein rightly rejectedthe applications submitted for permission to construct building in PlotNos.20 and 21 and the impugned order is valid and enforceable in theeye of law. The respondent herein has not committed any illegality inissuing the impugned order as alleged by the petitioners and it is thepetitioners who by hand in glove with Sri.K.Jayaraj and their vendorshave created a sale deed in favour of the petitioners which is nonest inthe eye of law as the proceedings wee initiated prior to the executionof the sale deeds on the subject property bearing plot Nos.20 and 21.Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for inthe writ petition.”

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that refusal of the buildingpermission application by the respondent-Board is wholly unjustified since K.Jayarajwho is said to be the husband of K.Sheela is in no way concerned with the property,which the petitioners purchased.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that aCBI case is pending against K.Jayaraj and therefore, the respondent-Board couldnot entertain the building permission application pending investigation of thecriminal case.

7. As on this day the property does not stand in the name of K.Jayaraj.K.Anasuyabai and K.Sheela purchased plot Nos.20 and 21 from Cooperativesociety under registered sale deeds. In turn they sold the property to the petitioners.If the respondent-Board has any claim with the property, they have to proceed inaccordance with law. As on this day there seem to be no steps taken by therespondent-Board to proceed against the plots which are purchased by thepetitioners under the registered sale deed. In that view of the matter, the rejection ofthe building permission application by the respondent-Board is wholly unjustifiedand accordingly proceedings issued by the respondent-Board are hereby set aside.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed directing the respondent-Board to receiveand consider the application and process the same in accordance with theprovisions of Cantonment Board Rules. No costs.

Dt: 23-12-2005. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J)

tnb

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICEB.SESHASAYANA REDDY

DISPOSED OF ON 23-12-2005