Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Cantonments Act, 2006 ss. 248, 340
Judgment
Cause title
1 Secunderabab Cantonment Board, Rep by the Executive Officer, Secunderabad. 2 The Officer Commending-in-Chief, Southern Command, Ministry of Defence, Pune, Maharashtra. 3 B.Srinivas, R/o. 1-37-20, Balamai, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S)
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or orders, direction or directions directing the 2nd Respondent to act in accordance with law and to hear and dispose of the Appeal Filed by the 3rd Respondent Under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, after hearing the petitioner herein also, in accordance with the provisions of Section 343(3) of the Act forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.Y.V.RAVI PRASAD The Court made the following :
O R D E R:-
The petitioner asserts that he along with three others purchased an extent of 3130 Sq. yards of land in Sy. No. 75/2 situated in Rasoolpura village, Secunderabad under a registered sale deed dated 18.05.1998. While so, one Vijayalaxmi raised an illegal structure in an extent of 55 Sq. yards out of the total extent of land by way of encroachment. Then, the petitioner filed W.P. No.13495 of 2006 seeking a direction to the 1st respondent-Secunderabad Cantonment Board to initiate proceedings under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006. In pursuance of the order dated 7.7.2006 passed by this Court, the 1st respondent on
18.6.2007, proceeded to demolish the illegal structures by taking police assistance. At that stage, one Anitha, who claims to be in possession of the structure filed W.P. No.12824 of 2007, and this Court, by its order dated 20.11.2007, while disposing of the writ petition directed Anitha to prefer statutory appeal under Section 340 of the Act, but she did not prefer any appeal. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent herein who claims to be the tenant of Anitha, filed W.P. No.5242 of 2008, and in pursuance of the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by this Court, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent on 25.11.2008 and the petitioner herein also filed an application seeking his impleadment in that appeal, but his grievance is that the 2nd respondent has not considered and disposed of the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent so far in accordance with the provisions of Section 343(3) of the Act, and hence, seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal forthwith, by way of the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions under Section 343(3) of the Act, the appellate authority has to dispose of the appeal filed under Section 340 of the Act within 90 days from the date of filing, as such, the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent. He has further submitted that this writ petition is similar to the one in W.P. No.6217 of 2008 which was filed by the petitioner herein seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the unofficial respondent therein i.e. G.V.Krishna Reddy and this Court, by an order dated 25.3.2008 directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the appeal. The factual matrix of the case is not in dispute. As per the provisions contemplated under Section 343(3) of the Act, any appeal preferred under Section 340 of the Act, shall be disposed of by the appellate authority, within three months from the date of filing the appeal.
Operative part
In the instant case, inasmuch as the appeal said to have been preferred by the 3rd respondent on 25.11.2008, is not yet disposed of by the 2nd respondent, and in view of the order passed by this Court in similar Writ Petition No.6217 of 2008 directing the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the unofficial respondent therein, following the said order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition with the following direction:
The 2nd respondent-Officer Commending-in-Chief, before whom the appeal said to have been preferred by the 3rd respondent is pending, is directed to consider and dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner as well as the unofficial respondent and the 1st respondent-Secunderabad Cantonment Board, expeditiously.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th March, 2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Cantonments Act, 2006 — ss. 248, 340.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.