IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.36582 of 2014 Between:
P. Ramasethamma, W/o. Late P. Subba Raju, Aged about 60 years R/o. Chinanindra Kolanu (V), Nidamarru Mandal, Tadepalligudam Taluk, West Godavari District & 2 others .. Petitioners AND The Secunderabad Contonment Board, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Court Compound, S.P. Road, Secunderabad.
.. Respondent The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.36582 of 2014 ORDER:
According to the petitioners, the husband of the first petitioner Late P. Subba Raju was a member of Vimalananda Co-operative Housing Society, situated in Survey No.74/4 of East Marredpally, Secunderabad Cantonment Area. The society executed registered Sale Deed, dated 06.08.1991, in favour of Late P. Subba Raju selling Plot No.10 in Survey No.74/4, admeasuring 357 square yards. The second petitioner purchased Plot No.12 on 06.08.1991, admeasuring 251 square yards and the third petitioner purchased Plot No.11 on the same day admeasuring 257 square yards. The petitioners submitted an application on 04.06.2014 seeking permission to construct compound wall in Plot Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the Society. After scrutiny of the said application, vide letter bearing Lr.No.SCB/EB/C.Wall/P.No.10/Vimalananda CHS/E’M’Pally/498/2291, dated 09.07.2014, the petitioners were informed that there are three objections for grant of permission sought by them:- 1) The subject site is not part of any sanctioned lay out. 2) There is no approved layout in the name of Vimalananda CHS, Sy.No.74/4. 3) NOC from Tahasildar, Marredpally, regarding land point of view is not found enclosed. The petitioners were asked to comply with the said objections. According to the petitioners, a joint application was submitted on 27.08.2014 giving explanation on all the three objections raised. Alleging that so far no orders are passed even though such explanation was filed on 27.08.2014, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that by constructing a compound wall, no harm is going to cause to anybody, but on the contrary it would protect the property from being misused by unsocial elements and prevent unauthorized occupation. Therefore, by constructing a compound wall, no provision of law is going to be violated even assuming that the society has not granted proper permission and that there is a dispute in Survey No.74/4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no requirement to produce No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar and such insistence is illegal.
3. Since the representation submitted by the petitioners is pending consideration, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners, dated 27.08.2014, and pass appropriate order, as warranted by law, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioners with reference to objection Nos.1 and 2. Insofar as objection No.3 is concerned, as there is no such requirement of obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar, the respondent Board shall not insist for production of No Objection Certificate. Any such decision shall abide the result of writ petitions pending in this Court against order in LGC No.167/97 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 1st December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.36582 of 2014 Date: 1st December, 2014 KL