Smt. K.V. Sharmilla v. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board

All these writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent – Secunderabad Cantonment Board – in directing the petitioners to vacate the respective houses in their occupation within 24 hours so as to enable it to demolish the premises on the ground that in spite of the notices issued for demolition under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 as well as the final notices under Section 320 of Cantonments Act, 2006, the petitioners failed to comply with the same. It is the specific case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions that they were not served with any notice either under Section 248 (1) or final notice under Section 320 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 as alleged in the impugned notices. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that the construction of the premises in their occupation was completed long back and as such the notices allegedly issued under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonment Act, 2006 were unwarranted and thus the impugned action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal.

In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is pleaded that on the basis of the information received from the Assistant Engineer of the Cantonment Board that the petitioners had undertaken unauthorised construction, preliminary show-cause notices were issued in December, 2009 calling upon them to stop the construction and to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against them under the provisions of the Cantonments Act, 2006. Since the petitioners failed to respond, the matter was placed before the Cantonment Board. On 27.4.2010 it was unanimously resolved by the Board to proceed against the unauthorised constructions. Accordingly, the Chief Executive Officer issued statutory notices under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 granting 30 days time to the petitioners to remove the unauthorised constructions specified therein. In spite of the same, as the petitioners did not remove the unauthorised constructions, final notices under Section 320 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 were issued.

As the petitioners failed to respond, the respondent was constrained to issue the impugned notices calling upon the petitioners to vacate the premises within 24 hours so as to enable the respondent to proceed with the demolition at the cost of the petitioners. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Though the impugned action is assailed by the petitioners on various grounds, including that absolutely no case could be made out for initiating the proceedings under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, having regard to the fact that against the order made under Section 248 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, a remedy of appeal is available under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006, I am of the view that it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on merits and it would be appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy of statutory appeal. In view of the specific plea of the petitioners that the notices under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act, 2006, were not served on them at any point of time, I deem it appropriate to grant reasonable time to the petitioners to prefer appeals as provided under Section 340 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 read with Sl.No.14 of Schedule-V. Accordingly, the petitioners are hereby granted two weeks time for filing appeals against the notices/orders under Section 248 (1) of the Cantonments Act from the date of receipt of this order, if not already filed.

If the appeals are preferred within the time fixed above, the same shall be received by the appellate authority Zand appropriate orders shall be passed following due process of law. Till such time, there shall be stay of demolition of the structures in question. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 29.06.2011 Note:- CC in 3 days. (B/O)