THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.13776 OF 2003 O R D E R This writ petition is filed for declaring the action of the respondents in removing the fencing erected around the land of the petitioner admeasuring Acs.3-27 guntas in Sy.No.170/2 of Thokatta village, Secunderabad as illegal and arbitrary, unjust, violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent no.3 – the Executive Officer Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, to approve the plan submitted by the petitioner on 01.07.2003 in accordance with law. 2. From the averments made in the writ affidavit, it could be seen that the case of the petitioner is that his father purchased an extent of Acs.7-27 guntas compromised in Sy.No.37/2 (old) new Sy.No.170/2 situated in Thokatta village, Secunderabd under a registered sale deed dated 20th Aban 1355 Fasli from its original owner Mr. Abdul Wahab and ever since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and after his death, the petitioner being the legal heir, is in possession and the District Revenue Officer, Hyderabad District by order dated 18.12.1991 in proceedings No.B2/8431/91 mutated his name in the revenue records and that the defence authorities have occupied an extent of about Acs.4- 00 and constructed water reservoir without payment of any compensation and that he is in possession of the remaining extent of Acs.3-27 guntas by fencing the same and he also filed a writ petition against the defence authorities in W.P.No.12729/1989 and as there was dispute with regard to title and the petitioner is supported by a registered sale deed, the writ petition was disposed directing the defence authorities to prove their title. Accordingly, the defence authorites filed suit in O.S.No.266/1991 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, Secunderabad for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for other consequential reliefs and the said suit was dismissed on 15.3.1996 and in the appeal preferred in A.S.No.99/1997 on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, Secundeabad also was dismissed on 18.1.2003 and after dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner filed application for permission to construct a compound wall, but the 3rd respondent – Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, did not sanction the permission and therefore, he filed the present writ petition. 3. On the other hand, the case of the respondents 1 to 3, in the counter affidavits, is that the land is a Government land and as per G.L.R.Sy.Nos.689 and 721, the land is in possession of the defence authorities and as the petitioner laid fencing without any permission, in view of the provisions under Section 194 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 the same was removed and under Section 181 of the Act, for undertaking any construction in the cantonment area, permission has to be taken and as the land belongs to the Government, no permission was granted. 4. The impleaded respondent no.4 – The Mandal Revenue Officer in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition while reiterating the claim of the respondents 1 to 3, further stated that the order passed by the District Revenue Officer in proceedings No.B2/8431/91 dated 18.12.1991 was set aside by the Collector, Hyderabad District in proceedings No.B2/3601/95 dated 22.8.2003 and further reserved right to file counter. However, no counter affidavit is filed. 5 . The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 relying on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD v. MOHAMMED MOHIUDDINsubmitted that under Section 181 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 the Cantonment Board has power to sanction or refuse to sanction any permission for construction in the cantonment area and as there is dispute between the Government and the writ petitioner, the permission sought for by the petitioner was not given and hence no exception can be taken. 6 . The dispute in the present writ petition is connected with S.A.No.1145/2004 and W.P.No.16272/2004. All the three cases i.e., S.A.No.1145/2004 and W.P.Nos.16272/2004 and 13776/2003 have been heard analogously and separate orders have been passed in S.A.No.1145/2004 and W.P.No.16272/2004. In view of the order passed in these two cases, the present writ petition can be disposed of. 7. Consequent upon the directions in the writ petition in W.P.No.12729/1989, the defence authorities filed suit in O.S.No.266/1991 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, Secundeabad for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for a consequential direction to the defendant, who is the petitioner herein, not to alienate the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on 15.3.1996 holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and also possession over the suit schedule property and that the defendant proved his title and possession over the suit schedule property. Challenging the same, the defence authorities – i.e., respondents 1 and 2 herein filed first appeal in A.S.No.99/1997on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad and the same was dismissed on 18.1.2003, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Challenging the same, the defence authorities filed second appeal in S.A.No.1145/2004. Today the same is also dismissed confirming the concurrent judgments of both the courts below. 8 . The 4th respondent – State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalgherry Mandal, Hyderabad in the affidavit filed in support of the implead petition, stated that the orders passed by the District Revenue Officer dated 18.12.1991 in favour of the petitioner, has been set aside by the Collector, Hyderabad District by proceedings dated 22.8.2003. The said order of the District Collector dated 22.8.2003 has been questioned by the purchasers of certain plots in the land in question from the petitioner in W.P.No.16272/2004. Today, the said writ petition in W.P.No.16272/2004 was also disposed of and the order dated 22.8.2003 has been set aside as the same was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and also on the ground of latches. 9. Further, from a perusal of the facts in the judgment of the Apex Court cited one supra, it could be seen that an application was filed before the Cantonment Board for sanction of lay out. The Apex Court held that the Cantonment Board has power to sanction or refuse toe sanction the lay out plan and the concerned authority if satisfied about the existence of such a dispute in terms of Section 181 of the Act, may refuse to sanction of any lay out. In the said judgment it was also held that the parties need not establish before the competent authority and the possession may be considered as one of the relevant aspects before sanctioning the plan. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under for better appreciation: “17. So far as the question of investigating into the title of the parties is concerned, we feel that the view of the High Court to the extent that title is not required to be established by any of the parties before the competent authority, is correct. So far possession is concerned, it may be indicated that there seems to be no such specific provision requiring to establish possession but it may depend upon facts of a given case and it may be considered as one of the relevant aspects to be kept in mind while considering the application for sanction of a plan. But so far as the statutory requirement is concerned, it is evident from perusal of sub-section 4(b) of Section 181 that the competent authority dealing with the matter, has to see whether there is or not any dispute about the land between the person applying for sanction of the plan and the Government. In case the concerned authority is satisfied about the existence of such a dispute in terms of Section 181 of the Act, the request for sanction of the lay out plan is liable to be refused.. . .” 10. In the present case, as already noted above, the Defence Estates Officer, who is the competent authority, filed the suit and the subsequent appeals and failed to prove the title and also possession and, therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the relief sought for by the petitioners deserves to be considered. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent – the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, which is a civic body, to consider the plan submitted by the petitioner dated 1.7.2003 in accordance with law and approve the same by granting necessary permission within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. AVS ---------------------------------------- 22--08—2008