The court emphasized the necessity of resolving ambiguities in land survey identification through a joint survey, reaffirming the requirement for relevant authorities to comply with previous judicial directives regarding construction clearances.

ORDER :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

The petitioner prays for setting aside of a letter dated 26.07.2014 issued by the respondent No.2/ General Officer Commanding (GOC)-HQ, Andhra Sub Area, Secunderabad, by which the Security Clearance accorded by the HQ for the construction work undertaken by the petitioner in Survey No.90/P, Bandlaguda Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was directed to be kept in abeyance.

2. The petitioner is represented by the General Power of Attorney Holders.

3. The ambiguity in the status of the Survey Number where the petitioner’s construction is taking place is the cited ground in the impugned letter. The petitioner assails the impugned letter as being arbitrary and illegal in light of the facts both prior and subsequent to the impugned letter.

4. The facts which have been presented to the Court and are relevant to the present writ petition are briefly stated below:

5. The petitioner claims to have purchased the subject property i.e., the land in Survey No.90/P situated at Bandlaguda Jagir Village and Gram Panchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, under a registered Sale Deed dated 02.12.2006. The petitioner obtained a ‘No Objection Certificate’ on 29.05.2006 from the respondent No.2 for construction of residential houses on the land covered by Survey No.90 (Part) subject to the condition that the buildings shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The petitioner thereafter executed a Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney on 05.06.2007 in favour of B.H. Ravi Kumar and Syed Shah Mahmood Hussaini for developing the property. On 05.01.2011, the petitioner had obtained a sanction from the Gram Panchayat, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for construction of 17 Duplex Villas (Ground + 2 Floors). The petitioner was however stopped by the respondent No.2 on 18.01.2013 from proceeding with the construction on the ground that the petitioner would have to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the respondent No.2.

6. The petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate on 07.02.2013 which was finally granted on 14.08.2013 restricting the Security Clearance to only “Ground Floor”. The petitioner challenged the restriction in an earlier writ petition, namely, W.P.No.33343 of 2013, during the pendency of which the respondent No.2 issued the letter dated 26.07.2014 (impugned in the present writ petition) keeping the Security Clearance given on 14.08.2013 in abeyance.

7. The petitioner filed O.S.No.123 of 2014 along with an application (I.A.No.464 of 2014) for restraining the respondent No.2 from interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the schedule property. The application (I.A.No.464 of 2014) was dismissed on 01.12.2014 by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar. The petitioner challenged the same in C.M.A.No.1 of 2015 in the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

8. During pendency of the writ petitions and C.M.A.No.1 of 2015, the respondent No.2 initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act , 1971 before the Station Commander and Estate Officer, Secunderabad, on 28.03.2015 and the Station Commander and Estate Officer, Secunderabad passed an order on 27.06.2015 declaring the petitioner as an encroacher of the schedule property and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the schedule property within 15 days. The General Power of At