IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5299 of 2008 Between: Mamidi Janardhan Reddy, S/o.Mr.Yadi Reddy, R/o.Plot No.21, Jupiter Colony, Trimulgerry Village, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Court Compound,Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of Respondent board in refusing to consider the petitioner's application for granting permission to erect building in Plot No.16, in Sy.No.113, GLR Sy.No.344(part), situated at Jupiter Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Tribmulgerry Village, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently to direct Respondent Board to accord permission to erect a building in the aforesaid plot and further be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.DEEPAK BHATTACHARJEE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.5299 OF 2008 O R D E R: Sri Deepak Battacharya takes notice on behalf of respondents. The petitioner, who seems to have purchased plot No.16 forming part of the Jupiter Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Trimulgerry village, Secunderabad, is aggrieved that the Cantonment Board had declined to accord him the building permission as the predecessor-in-title for the lay out had not handed over the open spaces and other public amenity spaces provided for in the lay out to the Cantonment Board. But, however, when a similar question has been raised in Writ Petition No.27300 of 2007, this court, by its judgment dated 21.2.2008, had considered the entire matter and directed the respondents to take a decision on the feasibility of according the building permission applied for by the petitioner without insisting upon the predecessor-in-title for the lay out to hand over the 40% common areas through a gift deed in favour of the cantonment. Therefore, the respondent- board is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for construction of the building if it is, otherwise, in accordance with law. It is however made clear that the Cantonment Board is free to proceed against the person in whose favour the lay out has been released to retrieve the possession of the 40% of the open spaces including the spaces, over which roads have been laid, to be taken possession of. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 13th March, 2008 PNV To 1. The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, , Court Compound,Secunderabad. 2.2CD copies