1995 Supreme(AP) 660
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY, P.S.MISHRA
R.N.Narsing Rao - Appellant
Versus
T.K.Kodandaram - Respondent
Decided On : 10-11-95
The public benefit of enforcing laws and regulations, and the jurisdiction of authorities to promptly remove unauthorised constructions in violation of the law.
Headnote:
Unauthorised Construction - Cantonment Area - The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board to remove unauthorised construction in violation of the law, emphasizing the need for prompt action and the public benefit of enforcing laws and regulations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant had engaged in unauthorised construction in a Cantonment area, leading to a legal dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board to remove such construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Cantonment Board had the jurisdiction to remove unauthorised construction and emphasized the need for prompt action to clear such constructions. The court also highlighted the public benefit of enforcing laws and regulations, even against property owners.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board to remove unauthorised construction and the need for prompt action in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that unauthorised constructions in violation of laws and regulations should be promptly cleared, and the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board to remove such constructions was upheld.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the jurisdiction of the Cantonment Board to remove unauthorised construction and the need for prompt action in such cases.
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant.
( 2 ) THE questions writ large are - has any unauthorised construction in violation of the law applied to the Cantonment area been made, and has the cantonment Board jurisdiction to remove unauthorised construction. Action in the instant proceed ing has started at the instance of a person who does not have any interest of his own in the property upon which alleged illegal construction has been made. The Court has noticed the argument that there is no dispute as to the title of the appellant herein and has observed, issue of title is not available for any decision by the Cantonment Board. It is indeed a proceeding which has revealed the loopholes, which appear big when some persons take litigation from Court to Court and either confuse the whole matter or successfully avoid action by the competent authority to undo the illegalities committed by them. By litigating from Court to Court, the appellant herein has seen to it that for quite a few years the Cantonment Board has to sit without taking any action for the removal of unauthorised construction. Learned single Judge has only stated the obvious, when he has directed the Cantonment Board to take action in accordance with law and afford opportunity to all concerned, including the appellant herein, of being heard before taking action for removal of encroachment. There is some attempt before us, however, to suggest that all proceedings before the Cantonment Board should await the decision on the question of title and that should be decided in a competent court of law. There is also an attempt before us to suggest that the Court has issued a direction to the Cantonment Board, if after hearing the parties, it is satisfied that there is encroachment, to remove the encroachment. We are, however, satisfied that nothing should wait, and unauthorised constructions should be cleared as fast as possible. There can be unauthorised construction in violation of the rules, regulations, by-laws etc. , even by the owner of the property. Laws discretions are meant for the benefit of the public and not the individuals who violate laws. Further, without affecting the public at large and/or others whose rights, besides the title, are likely to be affected, direction is exercised only in favour of removal of encroachments. We do not find any error in the direction in this behalf, which learned single Judge has issued. We have found no merit in the appeal.
( 3 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed.