W.P No. 13924 of 2001 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

numbered as Appeal No.7/97and it was dismissed confirming the notice issued by 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel the petitioner strenuously contended that firstly the notice was not issued within the stipulated period of 12 months from the date of raising constructions. Further, the respondents are not sure as to whether it is a deviation or unauthorized construction. However, in the counter filed, it is stated that there was a mistake in stating that it is a deviation and that it is only an unauthorized construction. Learned counsel further submitted that even if there is any unauthorized construction, it is always open for the respondents to compound the same by invoking proviso to Section 185 of the Act; instead of invoking such provision, the respondents are bent upon demolishing the structures raised by the petitioner by spending huge money. It is not the case of the respondents that the structures are coming in the way of any public authority or obstructing any public way etc. Heard both sides. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the extreme step of issuing notice asking the petitioner to remove the structures raised at Bungalow No.173 situated in GLR S.No. 537, Bowenpally, Secunderabad is arbitrary and illegal. Both 1st and 2nd respondents have made a pedantic approach instead of practical approach of collecting compound fee, if the structures are unauthorized one. Though the learned counsel for the respondents asserted that the notice was issued within 12 months from the date of raising unauthorized constructions, no evidence has been placed before this Court to that effect. He further argued that as soon as the notice is given by the Cantonment Board, presumption must be drawn that notice was issued within 12 months As such, the order passed by 2nd respondent in Appeal No.7/1997 confirming the notice issued by 1st respondent dated 14.10.1996 is liable to be set aside as arbitrary and illegal and it is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. However, this will not preclude the respondents from levying compound fee, if any unauhorised constructions are raised by the petitioner on the subject land. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 19-1-2010. MVB.