1. Dr.K.S.Ashok, writ petitioner, filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in rejecting his application for permission for construction of compound wall, vide Lr.No.EB/P.No.33/Seva Mandal CHS/EM'pally 39/2131, dated 13.06.2006, on the ground that he has not obtained No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Hyderabad District Collector and Airport Authority of India as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and consequently direct the respondents to accord permission for construction of compound wall in respect of the property in question forthwith, and to pass such other suitable orders.

2. A counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent.

3. Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel representing the petitioner, had taken this Court through Sections 2(4) and 194 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (for short hereinafter called 'the Act', for the purpose of convenience) and also had drawn the attention to the corresponding provisions under the Cantonments Act, 2006 (Act 41 of 2006). The learned counsel would contend that the objections raised in the counter affidavit are not tenable.

4. On the contrary, Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned Standing Counsel representing the first respondent, would maintain that in the light of the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, unless necessary certificates are obtained, relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The learned counsel had also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 194 (2)(a) of the Act and would maintain that in the light of the same, the objections raised by the first respondent cannot be said to be unsustainable.

5. Heard the learned counsel.

6. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of plot No.33 situated in Survey No.74/9 (part) admeasuring 516.67 or 431.94 sq.yards and sq.mts., situated at Marredpally, Near Mahindra Hills, Hyderabad Urban Taluka, Hyderabad, having purchased the same from Cooperative Society under a registered sale deed, dated 30.04.1985, bearing Document No.5086 of 1983, dated 07.10.1983 of Book I, Vol.No.1174 from 219 to 232 and from the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is also stated that in order to prevent any encroachment over the said property, the petitioner applied for permission to Cantonment Board for construction of compound wall covering the plot, but the Cantonment Board through the impugned letter, dated 13.06.2006, rejected his request for permission on the following grounds: 1. Get NOC from Hyderabad District Collector from land point of view, and 2. Get NOC from Airport Authority of India regarding height point of view.

7. It is stated that the reasons given by the first respondent while refusing permission are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. It is further stated that under the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the District Collector is not authorized to issue any NOC before granting permission by a competent authority and no obligation is imposed on the competent authority to insist NOC from the revenue authority. The competent authority can as well reject the permission, if the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for according permission under the Building Bye-laws/Regulations. In the absence of requirement of obtaining NOC from the revenue authority under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the competent authority cannot reject the application for permission.

8. It is further averred that the present application is only seeking permission for construction of compound wall and the petitioner is not raising any permanent structures whatsoever, and it is the duty of the competent authority to grant permission for construction of compound wall. It is also stated that a copy of title deed was also submitted to the authority at the time of making application for permission an