Judgment

KASLIWAL, J.:- All the above Special Leave Petitions by builders in the city of Pune are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 18-10-1991 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The learned Judges in their order dated 18-10-1991 stated that the controversy raised in the petition before them stood concluded by an earlier decision of the Division Bench dated 15-4-1987. Thus, no reasons have been recorded in the impugned order and in order to decide the controversy before us learned Counsel referred to the decision of the High Court dated 15-4-1987.

2. The factual matrix of the above cases may be slightly different, but the legal controversies are common to all the cases and as such we are disposing of all matters by one common order. It was pointed out during the course of arguments that many more cases are pending in the various courts at different stages and the fate of those cases also hinges on the decision of these cases. In order to appreciate the controversies raised in these cases, we would narrate the facts of SLP No. 647 of 1992 and 985 of 1992 which in our view would cover the entire spectrum of the questions raised before us.

In SLP No. 647 of 1992

The original owners submitted an application for conversion of the old grant site into freehold sites vide letter dated 19-11-1980. The Cantonment Board Pune - the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Cantonment Board) on 2-12-1980 passed a resolution suggesting the set backs and recommended that the area admeasuring about 10633 sq. feet be allowed to be converted on the terms and conditions of payment fixed by the higher authorities. The petitioner through his architechts letter dated 16-12-1980 addressed to the Cantonment Executive Officer submitted the building plans. The Cantonment Board vide resolution No. 30 dated nil month April, 1981 resolved that the plans be sanctioned under Section 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) subject to AHOs No Objection. It was clearly mentioned in the aforesaid resolution as under :-

"The following formalities to be observed to be communicated when the plans to be returned to the applicant. The sanction be made effective only when the present right over the land is converted into freehold by the competent authority and conversion cost be decided by the Government is deposited by the applicant and subject to clearance from competent authority ULC Pune.

Government be requested to allow the party to proceed with construction after taking likely amount of freehold to avoid delay. Copy of the plan be given to the applicant for procuring the cement."

The Military Estate Officer by his letter dated 2-3-1983 conveyed sanction of the Government of India for conversion to freehold on payment of conversion charges of Rs. 5,78,109/ - on account of transfer value of the land. A condition was also put that the area of 2,167.44 sq. feet of land shall be surrendered, that was because of the set back suggested to which the petitioner agreed. The petitioner by telegram dated 21-3-1983 addressed to the Ministry of Law Justice and Company Affairs referred to his personal discussion and requested for payment of conversion cost in instalments. According to the petitioner this request was made on the basis of the policy of the Government of India declared vide letter dated 18-6-1982. The petitioner tendered two demand drafts of Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 40,641.80 ps. on 22-4-1983 being 1/5th of the amount of conversion charges. The Military Estate Officer returned the above drafts by letter dated 30-4-1983 on the ground that the aforesaid payments were only part payments of the conversion cost and refused to accept the drafts. The petitioner by letter dated 2nd May, 1983 addressed to the Director General DL&C, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi submitted that the action of the Military Estate Officer was not proper and there was no reason