M.A.Arif Razack v. The General Officer-Commanding in Chief, Southern Command, Pune & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
plot in question till the appeal is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Cantonment Act, 2006 s. 320
Judgment
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.31584 of 2012 ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the notice dated 28.03.2012, issued by the 2nd respondent in exercise of power under Section 320 of the Cantonment Act, 2006. By the aforesaid notice, the petitioner was directed to remove the structures raised by him in Plot No.13 of Hyderabad Asbestos Colony, Thokatta village, Kharkhana, on the ground that they are not covered by any permission. It is the case of the petitioner that he owns a house in Plot No.13 situated at Hyderabad Asbestos Colony of Thokatta village. It is stated that earlier, when the 2nd respondent-Cantonment Board has issued a notice dated
20.10.2011, he has submitted his reply stating that he has not undertaken any new constructions and that the building is an old one covered with asbestos sheets and as those sheets were broken and damaged, to replace the same with tin sheets, he undertook the replacing work, hence, it is not a new construction, as alleged. It is further stated that thereafter, the impugned notice dated
28.03.2012, issued under Section 320 of Cantonment Act, 2006, against which, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the same is pending consideration. When the matter came up on earlier occasion on
10.10.2012, it was adjourned to enable the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent to obtain instructions whether the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending or not. In the aforesaid order, this Court has also directed not to take any steps for removal of any structures covered by impugned notice, dated
Operative part
28.03.2012. When the matter is taken up today, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent that the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration and the same will be disposed of as soon as possible. In this case, it is to be noticed that the impugned notice is issued on the premise that the petitioner has raised unauthorised structures without any permission as required under the Cantonment Act, 2006, whereas, it is the case of the petitioner that it was a old house covered by asbestos sheets and when such sheets were damaged, the same were replaced with new sheets, as such, there were no fresh constructions at all, as alleged. In any event, under the Cantonment Act itself, there is substantive remedy of appeal against the notice issued under Section 320 of the said Act. As much as the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration, it is not desirable for this Court to record any finding whether any unauthorised constructions are made by the petitioner or not. Therefore, I deem it is a fit case to direct the respondents not to take any steps for demolition of petitioner's structures, till the appeal filed by him is disposed of. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 1st respondent-appellate authority to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the notice, dated 28.03.2012, issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 320 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be a further direction respondents not to take any steps for removal of any structures pursuant to the notice, dated 28.03.2012, till the appellate authority disposes of the matter. The petitioner also shall not make any further constructions in the plot in question till the appeal is disposed of. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, WPMP.No.40276 of 2012 stands closed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th October 2012
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: plot in question till the appeal is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cantonment Act, 2006 — s. 320.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 15 Oct 2012. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
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.