IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20731 OF 2002 Dt.11.2.2010 Between: V. Sudhakar Rao and others … Petitioners And Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Rep. by its Executive Officer and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.20731 OF 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in seeking to demolish the petitioners’ flats bearing Nos.205, 303, 304, 202, 103 and G-B situated in Taraka Towers of Plot bearing No.34/A (Part-I and Part-II) in S.Nos.166 to 168 of Ramnagar, Picket, West Marredpally Road, Thokatta Village, Secunderabad Cantonment, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri T.C.D. Sekhar, learned Counsel representing Sri P. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Deepak Bhattacharji, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. The petitioners purchased the residential flats from respondent Nos.2 and 5. They filed this Writ Petition alleging attempt on the part of respondent No.1 to demolish the flats purchased by them on the ground that they were constructed by respondent No.5 in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The main ground on which the petitioners assailed the proposed action of respondent No.1 is that they were not served with any notice as envisaged under Section 185 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (for short, “the Act”). In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, it is stated that respondent No.1 has issued preliminary notice on respondent No.2 on 19.6.1998, that she and others filed O.S. No.1393 of 1998 in the Court of First Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, and obtained injunction and that after the said injunction was vacated, a final notice under Section 256 of the Act was issued on 05.11.2001. Respondent No.1 has, therefore, taken the stand that as the petitioners appeared to have purchased the properties after the preliminary notice was issued and during the pendency of the civil suit, there was no need for issuing fresh notice to the petitioners. Before the final notice was issued, the petitioners have purchased the properties. The title and interest in the properties have accordingly been conveyed to the petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled to proper notice before the action for demolition is taken by respondent No.1. Indeed, the final notice which is questioned in this Writ Petition has been stayed by this Court as far back as 17.10.2002 and since then respondent No.1 is unable to proceed further in pursuance of final notice dt.05.11.2001. In the light of this fact situation, if respondent No.1 is allowed to proceed with further action in pursuance of the final notice dt.05.11.2001, that would cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Fairness requires that the petitioners are put on notice and heard before respondent No.1 contemplates further action for the alleged illegal constructions. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. The final notice dt.05.11.2001 is quashed. Respondent No.1 is given liberty to issue final notice afresh to the petitioners and take appropriate action for demolition of the alleged illegal structures, after considering the objections, if any, filed by the petitioners. As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.25934 of 2002 filed by the petitioners is disposed of. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 11.2.2010 bnr