THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.4936 OF 2010 Dated 4th March, 2010 Between: G.Suryanarayana and two others …Petitioners And The Cantonment Board and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V.Hari Haran Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Srikanth Kaveti For Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri T.Venkat Raju For Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud Asst. Solicitor General The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners’ applications for construction of a compound wall and issue of building permit in respect of open land admeasuring 1333.33 square yards forming part of Survey Nos.342, 343 and 364 of Pedda Kamela Road, adjacent to MES Pump House Road, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad. I have heard Sri V.Hari Haran, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be the owner of the above mentioned extent of land and petitioners 2 and 3 are stated to have obtained an agreement of sale-cum-general power of attorney from petitioner No.1. The petitioners made application dated 16.12.2008 to the respondents to issue a no objection certificate to enable them to take up construction work. The petitioners also applied for construction of a compound wall around the land. Respondent No.1 is stated to have addressed letter dated 29.05.2009 to the Tahsildar, Tirumalagiri, with reference to the plans submitted by the petitioners to state whether any land for which the plans were submitted belongs to the State Government and that in case he has any objection, the same may be communicated within seven days. Subsequently, the Office of respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 14.07.2009 to the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, wherein he stated that according to the GLR maintained by his Office, the land comprised in GLR Survey No.342 admeasuring 1.364 acres; the land comprised in GLR Survey No.343 admeasuring 1.166 acres and the land comprised in GLR Survey No.364 admeasuring 1.165 acres are owned by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and that on the basis of a complaint received from an unknown source, it is proposed to conduct a joint survey/demarcation of land. Accordingly, he requested the Deputy Director to fix a convenient date for the proposed joint survey for ascertaining as to whether there exists any encroachment or otherwise. A perusal of the record shows that a joint survey was conducted by the Inspector of Survey, Office of the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, after issuing notices to all the parties concerned. The Deputy Director has submitted his joint survey report to respondent No.2, wherein he stated as under: “The Inspector of Survey, O/o the Deputy Director (S & LRs), Hyderabad District conducted joint survey and demarcation by issuing notices to all the concerned and submitted a report. According to that survey, the open land existing to the southern side of Teachers’ colony does not come in Teachers’ Colony and the same was informed vide reference 3rd cited. Aggrieved by that report, again it was requested to conduct joint survey for further clarification vide reference 2nd cited. Hence, the Deputy Director (S&LRs), Hyderabad District issued notice to all the concerned and conducted joint survey along with the officials of O/o DEO, on 21.12.2009. As per the joint survey, the vacant land existing on the southern side of the Teachers’ Colony does not come in the Teachers’ Colony as per the approved layout, but comes in GLR No.364 in Survey No.114 P of Tirumalagiri Village and Mandal, as shown in the survey and demarcation sketch enclosed herewith.” After receipt of the said report by respondent No.2, the petitioners evidently approached him for taking appropriate action. By letter dated 05.01.2010, respondent No.2 informed the petitioners that an extent of 6.535 acres, out of GLR Survey No.364 admeasuring 7.70 acres, was transferred to the Teachers’ Cooperative Housing Society in the year 1983, in an exchange deal, and that as per the joint survey conducted by the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, the extent available on ground was only 1333.33 square yards and that as the said land has already been transferred to the Teachers’ Cooperative Housing Society, the petitioners were advised to deal with the said Society for resolving the land dispute. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that communication dated 05.01.2010 sent by respondent No.2 is patently contrary to the joint survey report dated 21.12.2009, wherein it is categorically mentioned that the open land, which is obviously referable to the land claimed by the petitioners, does not fall in Teachers’ Colony. The learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.1 should have taken into consideration the joint survey report and disposed of the petitioners’ applications for grant of building permission to construct compound wall and to carry on construction work. From the perusal of the joint survey report, it is evident that initially during the survey conducted by the Inspector of the Office of the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, the open land was found falling outside the Teachers’ Colony. Not being satisfied with the said finding, a request appeared to have been made by the Office of respondent No.2 on 30.11.2009 for a further survey. Accordingly, the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Record issued notices to all the concerned and conducted joint survey along with officials of respondent No.2 on 21.12.2009 and even during the second joint survey, it was found that the open land existing to the southern side of the Teachers’ Colony does not fall in Teachers’ Colony as per the approved layout. In the face of the above mentioned uncontroverted facts, I do not find any rationale in respondent No.2 asking the petitioners to deal with the Teachers’ Colony management and in respondent No.1 not disposing of the petitioners’ applications for grant of permission for putting up construction. It is incumbent upon respondent No.1 to consider the petitioners plans with reference to the statutory provisions and regulations governing the applications for granting building permissions. The petitioners cannot be left in the lurch by the respondents and be placed at the mercy of a private society. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the petitioners’ applications for grant of construction permissions in the light of the joint survey report dated 21.12.2009 submitted by the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad to respondent No.2 without reference and regard to letter dated 05.01.2010 addressed by respondent No.2 to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 shall dispose of the petitioners’ applications within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of respondent No.1 declining to grant permissions, it shall state the reasons therefor and communicate the same to the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.6352 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th March, 2010 vrn