THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13448 of 2002 July 05, 2010 Between: R.Sakku Bai, W/o.Malla Reddy … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.13448 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner purchased land admeasuring 723.54 Sq.yards in plot Nos.55 and 56 comprised in S.No.74/6 forming part of layout of about Acs.0.40 guntas under registered sale deed dated 15.3.1995. It appears that the land originally belonged to William Ceaser, who sold the land to one Dr.E.N.Dass. The successors of the said owner sold the land to M/s.Balamrai Cooperative Housing Society (BCHS). On an application made by BCHS, it appears, the Government vide order dated 18.5.1985 exempted the land from the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. BCHS obtained layout approval from Cantonment Board and allotted plots to its members. The Government filed LGC No.167 of 1997 against number of members and BCHS was arrayed as sixth respondent. Petitioner commenced construction and third respondent allegedly acting under the instructions of second respondent came to petitioner’s site on 21.7.2002 and demolished the compound wall. Therefore the instant writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus for declaration and direction. The counter affidavit is filed on 18.12.2002 stating that when L.G.C. No.167 of 1997 is pending, petitioner has taken up construction. The allegation that the land is patta land is denied. It is alleged that it is Government land and that after the abolition of Paigahs, the land vested in the Government. It is brought to the notice of this Court that LGC No.167 of 1997 has since been dismissed by the Special Court constituted under Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, the Government’s plea is unsustainable. Insofar as construction is concerned, the Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board is right that when the land is either Government land or patta land, when once construction is taken up by a private person, permission is necessarily to be obtained. The allegation that the Cantonment Board is interfering with the possession is not true. It is further submitted that even if petitioner took up construction without obtaining permission, under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, the Board has power to interfere with the construction. He has produced before this Court photographs showing three storeyed building at plot Nos.55 and 56. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondents. As rightly pointed out, there is no whisper in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition that the petitioner obtained permission for construction. Merely because this Court granted stay of dispossession in another connected writ petition, the same does not amount to permitting the petitioner to take up construction work without complying with statutory provisions. The petitioner is given liberty to obtain permission and proceed further. If any illegal construction is made, it shall be open to fourth respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) July 05, 2010 YS