The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority of the Chief Executive Officer under Section 261 of the Cantonment Act empowers the removal of boundary walls, hedges, or fences without permission, and the limited scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking to declare the action of respondent No.1 in issuing the impugned proceedings No. SCB/EB/CW/D.No.3-53-64/Near Asha Officers CHS/T’gherry/ 429 dated 05.02.2018, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of Cantonment Act, 2006 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri A.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.R.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board, appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Gudiseva Narasimha, learned counsel for unofficial respondent No.2 and perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioner and the contentions raised on her behalf are that in the year 1988, the husband of the petitioner by name Late Sri V.Jaipal, was allotted Plot No.48, which was assigned House No.3-53-64, situated at New Gandhi Nagar, behind community Hall, Near Asha Officers’ Colony, Ward No.7, Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, on Weaker Section Housing Society Scheme. The requisite instalments for obtaining the subject property were paid by the husband of the petitioner and he was also granted Patta certificate. After the death of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner succeeded the subject property and she is in occupation of the same. While so, the respondent No.1-Cantonment Board issued a notice dated 29.07.2017 under Sections 257(2), 261(2)(a) & (3) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short “the Act”) to the petitioner alleging that she has constructed a boundary wall measuring 2 x 27’ x 5’-0” and 1 x 37’ 6” x 5’-0” by encroaching the public road situated in front of her house without obtaining any permission from the respondent No.1 and to remove the same within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 01.09.2017 to the respondent No.1 stating that the husband of the petitioner was allotted the subject property and during his lifetime, he constructed three rooms and one toilet along with the compound wall in the year 1988 and that the husband of the petitioner died on 14.12.2014 and the petitioner and her children are residing in the said premises. It is also submitted that since the petitioner resisted illegal attempt of a member of the respondent No.2’s family to encroach the petitioner’s property, the respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 filed a Writ Petition No.23477 of 2017 before this Court against the respondent No.1 and the petitioner herein stating that respondent No.1 is not taking any action to demolish the wall constructed by the petitioner. In the said writ petition, this Court, vide interim order dated 31.07.2017 in W.P.M.P.No.29010 of 2017 in the said writ petition, considering the submission of the Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 that a notice dated 29.07.2017 has been issued to the petitioner herein and necessary action has already been initiated acting on the complaint of the respondent No.2 herein, directed the respondent No.1 to complete the entire exercise within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner herein and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order of this Court, a notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 on 24.08.2017 asking the petitioner to submit a reply to the notice dated 29.07.2017 within a period of seven days. Immediately, the petitioner herein filed a reply reiterating her submissions made in the earlier reply and also stated that she has not encroached any public property. However, the respondent No.1 passed the order dated 18.10.2017 directing the petitioner to remove the compound wall within seven days from the date of receipt of the proceedin