IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.17881 of 2011 BETWEEN V. Shanker Babu. ... PETITIONER AND The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V.V.N. NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: MR. Y.V. RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner has approached this Court alleging physical interference by the officials of the respondent with regard to the construction taken up by him in pursuance of sanction plan obtained on 17.02.2011 over Plot No.87, Sy.No.55/1, Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Vasavi Nagar, Kakaguda, Secunderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. 3. By order dated 27.06.2011, while issuing notice before admission, this Court directed the respondent not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the property in question in any manner whatsoever, provided the construction is being made in accordance with the permission granted vide proceedings dated 17.02.2011. 4. Learned standing counsel for the respondent, who has now filed a counter, denies that there was any physical interference, as alleged and submits that the respondent has already issued a notice under Section 248(1) of the Cantonment Act, 2006 dated 22.08.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that while the petitioner has received the said notice from the respondent, he has preferred an appeal dated 22.09.2011 before the General Officer Commandant – in – Chief, Southern Command under Section 342 of the Cantonment Act against the proceedings issued under Section 248(1) of the Cantonment Act. 6. Statutorily further proceedings automatically get stayed on filing an appeal under Section 342 of the Cantonment Act. Since there is an automatic stay of all further proceedings during the pendency of the appeal, no further orders are necessary to be passed in this writ petition except relegating the petitioner to the said appellate remedy for seeking appropriate relief. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 14, 2011 DSK