The Cantonment Board had jurisdiction over the petitioner's property under the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the G.O.C-in-Chief, Southern Command, as the order levying a composition fee was not an appealable order under the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad, dated 25-7-1957, levying a composition fee of Rs. 1,000. 00 for certain unauthorised constructions carried out by the petitioner in his premises or in default to demolish and remove the said unauthorised construction.

( 2 ) THE facts relevant for this enquiry are as under; The petitioner Sri P. V. Jaya Bao is a pensioner of the erstwhile Hyderabad Government. He is the owner of a building and land appurtenant thereto, bearing Survey Nos. 47/6, 47/7 and 47/8 in the village of Busareddiguda, Baghat Ta-luq, Hyderabad District. He applied to the Cantonment Board under Section 179 of the Cantonments Act II of 1924 on 21-5-1954 for permission to build outhouses consisting of three rooms and a verandah and servants quarters consisting of two rooms and a verandah, one to the south-east and the other to the north-west in the compound of Bungalow No. 223, Maredapalli Road. The plan submitted by the petitioner for the said constructions was sanctioned by the Cantonment Board by its resolution dated 10-9-1954. While the construction was going on, the Cantonment authorities inspected the constructions and found that the said constructions were not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. As against the sanction accorded for construction of two blocks, the petitioner had combined both the blocks and constructed the same at the south-east comer of his residential house. As a result of combining the two blocks into one, there was a change in the number and position of doors and windows. The Cantonment authorities, therefore, directed the petitioner by a letter dated 5-2-1955 to stop further construction. Thereupon the petitioner submitted revised plans showing the deviations made. The Board duly considered the revised plan submitted by the peti-tioner and passed an order on 14-4-1955 to the effect that the unauthorised construction might be allowed to stand on payment of a composition fee of Rs. 1,000. 00 subject to the concurrence of the statutory authority, the G. O. C. in Chief, Southern Command. The said resolution of the Board was passed under Section 185 of the Cantonments Act. The petitioner applied to the G. O. C.-in-chief, Southern Command, Poona, for rescinding the order. The application of the petitioner was rejected on 14/07/1955 and the result thereof was communicated to the petitioner through the Cantonment Boards letter dated 26/07/1955. On a further reference by the petitioner, the Board by its order dated 25-7-1957 affirmed its decision for the levy of composition fee and required compliance with the same. Thereafter, the petitioner has applied to this Court, seeking the removal of the Boards order on certiorari.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has alleged that the Cantonment Board has no jurisdiction over his property in Busareddiguda as the notification dated 28-8-1906, issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Cantonments Act (XIII of 1889) had declared that Busareddiguda and 12 other villages were transferred to the Secundera-bad Cantonment solely for the purpose of exercising Criminal and Police jurisdiction. The residents of the said villages were governed by the laws in force in Hyderabad in Other matters and not by the Cantonments Act. After the coming into force of the Constitution, the petitioner has the fundamental right to enjoy his property in the manner he liked. The Board had no right to impose restrictions on him for putting up constructions in his site and imposing composition fee. Alternatively, the petitioner averred that the composition fee was excessive and that he was not given an opportunity of hearing before the G. O. C-in-Chief, Southern Command. The petitioner alleged further that he had no other remedy, whereby he could challenge the Cantonment Boards orders and obtain redress.

( 4 ) THE Cantonment Board filed an elaborate-co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document