IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17276 of 2007 Between: Leslie Anthony Pereira ..... Petitioner AND The Cantonment Board, Rep. by the Chief Executive Officer, Office of the Cantonment Board, Court Compound, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, SC for Cantonment Board The Court made the following: Order: At the interlocutory stage, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is in possession of a building/bungalow situated adjacent to Cantonment Garden, Bolarum Road, Secunderabad. It is his plea that the said building is in possession of his family members for the last 80 years. The further plea of the petitioner is that as the mud compound wall to the said building has become dilapidated, the same was replaced by him and that no additional structures have been raised. However, the respondent has issued show cause notice, dated 12-07-2006, to the petitioner directing him to stop unauthorised construction, to which the petitioner gave reply, dated 27-07-2006, stating that except replacement of the old compound wall, he has not raised any unauthorised structure. However, by Order, dated 12-10-2006, the respondent has ordered demolition of the structure raised by the petitioner. Again on 29-11- 2006, fresh notice was given under Section 185 (1) of the Cantonment Act, 1924. This time, the petitioner did not give any reply and by Order, dated 10-08-2007, the respondent has directed the petitioner to vacate the house within three days from the date of its receipt, in order to carry out demolition of the construction departmentally. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I found lapses on both sides. When a showcause notice was issued earlier on 12-07-2006 pointing out at the unauthorised construction, the petitioner has replied on 27-07-2006 wherein he denied the allegations except admitting that the old compound wall, which was constructed with mud, and the roof, which was laid with old wood, were in dilapidated condition and have to be repaired. In his earlier Order, dated 12-10-2006, the respondent has not even adverted to this reply, but curiously issued fresh notice on 29-11-2006, to which the petitioner has not given any reply. The petitioner filed photographs showing the condition of the building in question. If the said photographs reflect the true picture, they certainly need urgent repairs lest there is likely to be loss of human life. The respondent has, therefore, to make a practical approach in dealing with the situation pertaining to the condition of the building in occupation of the petitioner and he cannot, just, be allowed to make a pedantic approach in this regard. On the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate, if an opportunity is given to the petitioner by the respondent to justify the repairs, he had undertaken to the subject building. If needed, an inspection shall be made by the respondent. The petitioner is permitted to make a detailed representation justifying his action for carrying out the repairs, albeit without permission of the respondent, within four weeks from today. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent shall consider the same, duly inspecting the premises, and if he feels that those repairs are justifiable, despite absence of permission, he shall regularise those repairs. The respondent shall, accordingly, pass an appropriate order thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such communication, he is entitled to avail the appropriate remedy of appeal in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.22105 of 2007, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is also disposed of. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 29th June, 2011 lur