ORDER :- Heard Sri Hari Haran, the learned Counsel representing he writpetitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, the learned Counsel representing the respondent/Cantonment Board.

2. Sri Hari Haran, the learned Counsel, had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The learned Counsel also would submit that at a particular point of time, approval had been granted and objection had not been taken. But for certain reasons, the petitioner was unable to proceed with the construction and again when an application has been made praying for the building permission, the present objection had been taken. The learned Counsel also would submit that as far as the other similar plots are concerned, in most of the plots constructions came up since permissions had been granted and the writ petitioner is being discriminated. The Counsel also would maintain that at any rate the objection taken relating to the effective alternative remedy cannot a sustainable objection.

3. Per contra, Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee had taken this Court through the impugned order and the reasons mentioned and would submit that the same is based on a resolution and hence the objection taken is a tenable objection. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Sections 122, 250 and 340 of the Cantonment Act 2006, in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience. 4. Heard the Counsel and perused the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also the averments made in the counter affidavit as well.

5. The writ petitioner Koppu Satyanarayana, filed the present Writ Petition for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings No.EB/PNo.21/Akula Narayana Cly/Pkt/55/580, dated 20-2-2007 as illegal, untenable, illogical, irrational and consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondent to grant building permission to the petitioner in his application dated 20-1-2007 without insisting on the condition in the impugned order and to pass such other suitable orders.

The said impugned order dated 20-2-2007 reads as hereunder:

Tel.No.27805797

Office of the Cantonment Board

Court Compound, S.P. Road,

Secunderabad-500003 (A.P.)

Lr.No.EB/PNo.21/Akula Narayana Cly/Pkt/55/580

dated 20th February 2007

To

Shri K.Satyanarayana,

R/o.House No.10-1-610/A,

Nehru Nagar, West Marredpally,

Secunderabad-500026.

Sub: Submission of Plans for proposed construction of residential building on Plot No.21 in Sy.No.13 & 14 situated at Akula Narayana Colony, Laxminagar, Picket, Secunderabad Cantonment.

Ref: Your application received in this office on 20-01-2007.

In this connection this is to inform you, that, your above referred application cannot be considered as the Society has not handed over 40% common areas through Gift Deed as per layout byelaws.

You are therefore advised to insist the Society for handing over the 40% open areas to Cantonment for processing your building application.

However, the Board has further unanimously resolved vide its Resolution No.7 dated 28-10-2006 that the entire issue of ungifted layout may be referred to competent authority for obtaining necessary directions.

One copy of the plan is being retained in our office for our records.

Sd/-

Chief Executive Officer

& Member Secretary

(Valeti Premchand, IDES)

It is also further averred that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing Plot No.21, forming part of Sy.Nos.13 and 14 of Laxminagar, Picket, Secunderabad Cantonment having purchased the same from its anterior owner Sri Mekala Gnaneshwar s/o. Sri M.Venkaiah under a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1022/2004, dated 7-5-2004 for valuable consideration. It is to be pointed out that the anterior vendor Sri Mekala Gnaneshwar purchased the said plot of land under a sale deed dated 30-1-1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document