USMAN GANI J KHATRI OF BOMBAY GIRDHAR DWARKADAS SHARMA DEVENDRA SADASHIV KALE JERBAI CAWASJI DHUNJI SHAH MANGILAL J OSWAL GOOL NARIMAN DAMRI Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD:PUNE CANTONMENT BOARD:CANTONMENT BOARD PUNE:CANTONMENT BOARD PUNE:CANTONMENT BOARD PUNE:CANTONMENT BOARD PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 architecht's 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 AHO's No Objection. It was clearly mentioned in the aforesaid resolution as under:-

(3.) Before dealing with the contentions raised before us we deem it proper to set out the legislative history of the relevant orders and bye-laws made from time to time during the period in question.