IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15053 of 2011 BETWEEN M.S. Umalingam. ... PETITIONER AND The Estate Officer & Station Commandant, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M. KARUNA SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent: MRS. S. NANDA The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner has approached this Court alleging unauthorized interference by the respondent with respect to repair work undertaken by him at his house property bearing Plot.No.288 admeasuring 3181 sq. yards situated at Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad. Petitioner relies upon his decree obtained in O.S.No.90 of 1997 on the ﬁle of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Petitioner states that while he was undertaking repairs the subordinates of the respondents visited the petitioner’s house on 30.04.2011 and 01.05.2011 and threatened to demolish the structures, thereupon the present writ petition is filed. 2. This Court, by order dated 20.06.2011, granted interim direction to the respondent not to interfere with the work in progress without following due process of law. The said interim order continues till today. Now a vacate petition is moved by the respondent, though an order of eviction was already passed against the petitioner under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 and questioning the said order, the petitioner as well a others, sailing with him, have ﬁled CMA.No.81 of 2010, which is pending before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It appears the interlocutory order in the said CMA was questioned before this Court in CRP.No.4128 of 2010, which was later disposed of directing the disposal of CMA within four months by order dated 01.02.2011. The said CMA is said to be still pending disposal. Meanwhile, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition alleging unauthorized interference, as above. 3. Counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent speciﬁcally states in para 4 as follow: “In reply to the averments made in paras 4 to 6 of the petitioner’s aﬃdavit, I humbly submit that, It is not true to state that this Respondent interfered with the repairing work of the Petitioner’s house and threatened him and his workers to demolish the structure if they continue the work. This Respondent only asked the Petitioner to await the Court’s decision, no illegal interference as alleged has been made by this Respondent or his sub-ordinates.” 4. It is stated by the learned standing counsel for the respondent that notwithstanding the status quo order granted in the CMA, petitioner was taking up constructions. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no construction activity is being carried out as on now. 5. The respondent’s averment in para 4, extracted above, clearly shows that there is no interference by the respondent with the petitioner and if at all, the respondent has any objection to the petitioner’s construction activity, the respondent shall follow the provisions of the Cantonments Act by giving appropriate notice and then take up further action in accordance with law. In view of the fact that the respondent denied any interference, apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the rights of the petitioner and the respondent, which are subject matter of CMA.No.81 of 2010, referred to above, shall be adjudicated in the said CMA by the lower appellate Court, as already directed by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 3, 2011 DSK