THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1447 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners submitted an application to the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the 1st respondent herein, on 04.01.2010, seeking permission to construct a compound wall around Acs.8.00 of land in survey No.157/1, GLR No.534 (P) of Thokatta Village, Trimalgherri Mandal, Secunderabad Cantonment, Hyderabad. That application was rejected, on 24.02.2010, by the 1st respondent, by raising an objection as to the rights over the property and pointing out certain defects. The petitioners state that after prolonged correspondence, Defence Estate Officer and Defence Establishment have stated in clear terms that they do not have any right or claim over the property. The petitioners contend that they have submitted a representation in the form of an application on 24.02.2010. Their grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the order dated 24.02.2010 discloses that several objections were raised in it. The petitioners were required to produce necessary documents and orders of mutation to prove their title and possession over the property. Another reason pointed out was that there is no existing road as shown in the plan. The 3rd respondent states that the Defence Estate Officer, A.P. Circle has given its clearance. Reference is made to certain proceedings, that were initiated before this Court. The petitioners have made reference to several proceedings in support of their plea that they held title over the land. In the limited context of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with the same in detail. The application submitted by the petitioners seeking permission to construct compound wall was rejected on certain grounds. On instructions, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 submits that they have no interest or right over the property. There cannot be any objection by respondent No.1 on this aspect. The petitioners claim that, along with their subsequent application, they have enclosed title deeds and other documents. Now that there is a substantial change in the situation in the form of a clear stand on the part of respondents 2 to 4, disclaiming any right over the property, the 1st respondent can pass fresh orders on the application. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders on the application submitted by the petitioners on 24.02.2010 within a period of four weeks from today. If they need any further information, it shall be open to them to require the petitioners to submit the same. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.02.2011. Note: Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ