( 1 ) THE petitioner claims that he allegedly purchased plot No. 17, admeasuring 232 Sq. yards in S. No. 157/9 (New S. No. 157/ 10) situated at Thokatta Village, secunderabad, by registered sale deed dated 16. 8. 1982. According to the petitioner plot no. 17 forms part of layout approved by Secunderabad Cantonment Board in favour of Government Press Employees co-operative House Building Society limited, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad (for short, the Society ). The petitioner approached the first respondent by making an application on 18. 12. 1999 for construction of residential building. By letter dated 30. 12. 1999 first respondent rejected the request for building permission on the ground that the plot does not form part of the sanctioned layout. Assailing this order, present writ petition is filed.

( 2 ) THE writ petition is opposed by first respondent by filing counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit filed by the executive Officer of the Cantonment board, it is stated that the layout in favour of the Society was sanctioned in 1987 and therefore the petitioner could not have purchased plot No. 17 in the lay out sanctioned in 1987 which has shown the same as owner s land and therefore the petitioner cannot claim any right over the land especially when civil suits are pending between petitioner and third respondent. Reliance is also placed on bye-law 14 of layout byelaws of the Cantonment Board.

( 3 ) THIRD respondent also filed a counter-affidavit alleging that he has purchased plot No. 12 from the Society and that plot No. 12 is none other than plot no. 17 and therefore the petitioner has no right over the plot. It is also stated that petitioner filed a suit against third respondent for perpetual injunction and counter suit filed by third respondent is also pending before Court of XI Additional Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, being O. S. No. 1424 of 1999 filed by the third respondent and O. S. No. 1427 of 1999 filed by petitioner. Both the suits are still pending.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner sri T. C. Dhanasekhar, submits that the society submitted a layout which was approved on 12. 12. 1987. As per the layout plot No. 17 admeasuring 231. 66 Sq. yards is also included in the lay out and therefore there cannot be any objection on that score. He would also submit that when the society allegedly submitted a revised layout which was approved by the Cantonment board on 27. 2. 1990, though the same was not assigned, the land has been kept apart of the lay out and therefore permission cannot be refused.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for first respondent, Sri Ramanandam, and learned counsel for third respondent, Sri Jyoti prasad, however, refute the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri dhanasekhar. They admit that though lay out was approved on 12. 12. 1987 plot No. 17 was shown, the same was deleted in the revised lay out approved on 27. 2. 1990. Learned Counsel for the third respondent further submits that the land in question was sold by the Society to his client and petitioner has no right over the property. Learned Standing Counsel for Cantonment board also placed reliance on bye-law 14 of layout bye-laws and judgment of the supreme Court in Poonam v. Municipal coporation of Delhi, 2000 (5) Supreme 363.

( 6 ) SECTION 179 of the Cantonments act, 1924 (for short, the Act) requires every person who intended to erect or re-erect any building in a cantonment to apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to construct the building. Under section 181 of the Act it is competent for the Cantonment Board either to refuse to sanction erection or re-erection from sanction subject to such conditions as may be imposed. Section 181-A of the Act also empowers the Officer Commanding- in-Chief to impose restrictions on erection or re-erection of the building so as to prevent overcrowding or for the purpose of sanitation. A reading of sub-section (1) of section 181 wo