- (1.) All the above noted appeals though filed by different parties, involve the same question relating to the legality of the order dated 11-8-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the judgments later passed following the above said decision. The controversy revolves around the refusal to sanction the plan submitted by different parties to the Cantonment Board for construction of building over the land in question. The Central Government raised its claim over the land and filed objections to that effect through the Defence Estate Officer as provided under S. 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) All the appeals have been heard together along with Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 406-409/02 in which we grant leave. All these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) The facts in brief, relevant for purposes of disposing of these matters are that : the land over which the respondents proposed to raise construction and had submitted plans therefor, falls in the limits of Secunderabad Cantonment Board. There is a bungalow No. 215 in Thokatta village, which is said to have been purchased in the name of Syed Sirajuddin Ali Khan, the minor, represented through his father Syed Sadiq Ali Khan, by means of a registered sale deed dated 21-9-1899. It is also the case of respondents that Syed Sirujdin Ali Khan on attaining majority relinquished his rights in favour of his father Syed Sadiq Ali Khan by means of a deed dated 11-8-1911. The case of the respondents further is that Sadiq Ali Khan had allotted land to 11 persons sometime in 1920 and made an application for making entries in the village records accordingly. The land S. No. 37 was changed to S. No. 170 on revision of settlement. According to the respondents, the cantonment authorities have been collecting tax in respect of the land which has been in their possession. The respondents moved application to the Executive Officer, Cantonment Board for sanction of layout in respect of part of the land of S.No. 170, measuring 8 acres. The application for sanction of the plan was returned to the respondents with an objection that they were required to furnish exemption certificate under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.;