THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4961 of 2009 Date:08.12.2009 Between: Smt. Yerva Kamalamma. ..Petitioners and The Cantonment Board and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4961 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is owner of a plot of land in survey No.121/A situated at Thokatta Revenue Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, abutting the Cantonment Board. She submitted an application dated 21.04.2008 with a request to accord permission to construct a building. Through letter dated 17.01.2009, the second respondent rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the road abutting the plot of the petitioner is not developed as per the sanctioned layout. The petitioner assailed the same. She contends that the plot purchased by her is from out of a sanctioned layout and that the ground mentioned by the second respondent to reject her application is untenable in law. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the layout was sanctioned, the road was not developed from plot Nos.1 to 17 and that it was not connected with the internal roads of neighbouring colony in accordance with law. Heard Sri S. Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned standing counsel for the respondents. There is no dispute as to the ownership of the petitioner over the plot in question or that the layout was sanctioned in respect of the same by the respondents. It is not even alleged that the petitioner had occupied any land that is earmarked for road or open place. The only ground mentioned by the second respondent while rejecting the application of the petitioner reads as under: “I) The road of Sail Colony/Sanjeeviah CHS to which the subject site is abutting is not developed as per the sanctioned layout.” Basically, it is the duty of the Cantonment Board to develop the roads within its area of operation. It is relevant to mention that whenever the layout is sanctioned by the Cantonment Board, developmental charges are levied obviously to provide facilities like roads, drainage and lights etc. Assuming that the road in front of the land of the petitioner is not developed, the petitioner cannot be blamed, much less be denied the permission, for it. The other grounds mentioned in the counter-affidavit are equally untenable. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and impugned order dated 17.01.2009 is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh not with reference to the ground mentioned in the impugned order and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 08th December, 2009 GHN