JUDGMENT By the Court—In this writ petition, there are two respondents. The first respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and the second respondent is the Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt., Meerut. The second respondent is represented by Sri Mohammad Isa Khan, Advocate, who has filed a counter affidavit to the main writ petition as well as the supplementary counter affidavits. The first respondent was represented by the Asstt. Solicitor General of India, although no one from that side has appeared before us today although the case has been taken up in the revised list. By order dated 10.11.2005, the respondent No. 1 was required to file an affidavit similar to the affidavits sought from the Meerut Cantonment Board. The order dated 10.11.2005 is quoted below for ready reference : “As prayed by learned Counsel for the respondents list on 28.11.2005 to enable respondent-board to file an affidavit indicating whether apart from the sale consideration being demanded, there is any other objections to execution of the sale deed (freehold deed) in favour of the petitioner. A similar affidavit may be filed by respondent No. 1 represented by Sri K.C. Sinha. No further opportunity will be allowed for this purpose, as much delay has already taken place and petitioner has deposited substantial amount of money with the respondents. Along with the supplementary affidavit respondent No. 2 will also submit a draft deed of transfer (freehold) so that after hearing both the parties draft of the transfer deed may be settled by the Court in order to avoid future disputes and delay.” 2. Thereafter, another order dated 6.12.2005 was passed in this petition, which is again quoted below : “Two questions survive in this writ petition. Firstly whether the property is located in Abu Lane or in Ravindra Puri. The location of the property in question in either of these two localities will determine the circle rate to be applied for charging value of the property from the petitioner. Because the property has been described in some place and some documents as lying in Abu Lane while in other documents in which even respondent is also a party as lying in Ravindra Puri. Because the property has been described in some place and some documents as lying in Abu Lane while in other documents in which even respondent is also a party as lying in Ravindra Puri. Therefore, it appears desirable to get the situation reviewed by the respondent No. 2 and to file another supplementary affidavit along with relevant documents even copies of G.L.R. (General Land Register) and such other documents and if necessary to get the survey and inspection report also showing in which locality the property in dispute is situate. Secondly, the supplementary affidavit will also justify the right of pre-emption incorporated in the last part of the draft deed filed with the supplementary affidavit by the respondents. Because once the lease hold rights are being converted in free hold rights then it passes absolute rights and their does not appear to be any justification for the respondents to have first right of purchase over and above any other purchaser. List this petition on 9.1.2006.” 3. Thereafter, two further orders are then passed in this case are relevant which are dated 11.7.2006 and 27.7.2006, they are also being quoted below : "Both sides are granted two weeks’ time to file a supplementary affidavit including the documents, if possible to show whether prior to today any free hold /sale deed had been executed either by respondent-Cantonment Board or by any other Cantonment Board of any land in any Cantt. area in which the condition of pre-emption as mentioned in the proposed free hold/sale deed, finds place. List on 27.7.2006.” “Sri Mohd. Isa Khan appearing for the respondents, has stated today that he has not been able to obtain instructions and to file the documents required by the order of this Court dated 11.7.2006. As a last opportunity time is granted till the next listing of this case to enable him to file the supplementary affidavit. List on 27.7.2006.” “Sri Mohd. Isa Khan appearing for the respondents, has stated today that he has not been able to obtain instructions and to file the documents required by the order of this Court dated 11.7.2006. As a last opportunity time is granted till the next listing of this case to enable him to file the supplementary affidavit. Because the facts sought by the order of this Court dated 11.7.2006 are likely to be in the special knowledge of the respondents, therefore, if the documents are not filed along with the supplementary affidavit, this Court may be persuaded to draw an adverse inference to the effect that the pre-emption clause has been inserted only in the present proposed sale deed (free hold deed) and that no such clause was inserted in other such similar documents prior to or subsequent to the present proposed sale deed (free hold deed). If such inference is drawn, it may lead to the further inference that the respondents has deliberately and malafidely inserted such a condition as a vindictive action against the petitioner on account of the petitioner having filed the present writ petition. List the case peremptorily in the next cause list.” 4. A copy of the draft/proposed sale deed has been enclosed by the second respondent i.e. Cantonment Board, Meerut, as Annexure SCA. 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit of Kamal Singh Yadav sworn on 25.11.2005. Because, it appears from the exemplar sale deed filed by the Cantonment Board, Meerut, that similar clauses of pre-emption right had been incorporated in at least one earlier sale deed, therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner, which had not been directly raised but which an impression was sought to be given that such a clause of pre-emption was inserted only to frustrate the interest of the petitioner in the land in question. Indeed after examining the exemplar sale deed the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also wisely refrained from persisting on the issue. Indeed after examining the exemplar sale deed the learned Counsel for the petitioner has also wisely refrained from persisting on the issue. We are also not able to find any good ground for holding that this partial or more specifically conditional restriction on further transfer by the petitioner by inserting a clause of pre-emption is in any manner so unreasonable or so unconscionable so as to permit this Court to have the said clause removed from the proposed sale deed, which is basically a voluntary contract between the petitioner and the respondents. 5. The issues regarding location of the property and consequently, the circle rate to be applied and all other disputes have ceased to exist in view of the affidavits as well as concessions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which in effect implies that the petitioner is prepared to accept the free-hold rights in the property on the terms mentioned in the draft sale deed. The only direction sought by the petitioner now is that the petitioner may be permitted to deposit the balance amount of the sale consideration after adjusting what has already been deposited as per the demand notice dated 15.12.2004 in one plus four almost equal quarterly instalments. The first instalment has already been deposited on 8.4.2005. Four further instalments are sought by the petitioner. We do not find any difficulty in this prayer inasmuch as the draft agreement/sale deed submitted by the respondent No. 2 itself contains a clause providing for payment to be made in one plus five instalments together with 10 per cent interest thereon for the unpaid balance. The relevant clauses are extracted below for ready reference : “2. AND WHEREAS the purchaser applied to the Government for making the said payment in instalments : 1st Instalment to be paid on .................... 2nd Instalment to be paid on ................... 3rd Instalment to be paid on .................. 4th Instalment to be paid on ................... 5th Instalment to be paid on.................... 3. AND WHEREAS the Government/DEO accorded sanction for the above payment to be made in one plus five instalments together with 10 per cent interest thereon for the unpaid balance vide their/his letter No........dated..........” 6. Because, the petitioner is seeking only 4 i.e. less than the proposed 5 instalments, therefore, we called upon Sri Mohd. 3. AND WHEREAS the Government/DEO accorded sanction for the above payment to be made in one plus five instalments together with 10 per cent interest thereon for the unpaid balance vide their/his letter No........dated..........” 6. Because, the petitioner is seeking only 4 i.e. less than the proposed 5 instalments, therefore, we called upon Sri Mohd. Isa Khan on the two issues namely (1) whether the 4 instalments should or should not be granted and, if not, why not; and (2) as to why a time schedule be not fixed for execution of the sale deed after payment of the last instalment and interest by the petitioner. 7. No valid objection has been pointed out to the grant of instalments. However, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that according to the land policy i.e., the policy for conversion of Cantonment land into free-hold, sanction has to be obtained from the Director General Defence Estates. It has been mentioned in paragraph 18 of the main counter affidavit of Kamal Singh Yadav, sworn on 9.4.2005 that the Cantonment Board, Meerut, has forwarded the proposal for conversion of old grant rights in the land in question into free-hold rights in favour of the petitioner to the Principal Director Defence Estates, Central Command, Lucknow. 8. Viewed very technically, the Director General Defence Estates, the Principal Director Defence Estates and the Defence Estates Officer, Meerut Circle who will ultimately execute the sale deed, are not impleaded separately as respondents in this petition. But all these officers come under the Ministry of Defence, Union of India, which has been impleaded as respondent No. 1. In view of this situation as well as the delay which has already taken place we overlook the technicality and direct the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, the Director General Defence Estates, to examine the question of grant or refusal of sanction for conversion of the old grant rights into freehold rights in accordance with the draft sale deed and the proposal send by the Cantonment Board, Meerut to the Principal Director Defence Estates, Central Command, Lucknow, and either to grant the sanction or to pass an order giving detailed reasons why, despite the policy and despite the resolution of the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents in this writ petition, sanction is not being granted. Either way, this decision will be taken by the Secretary and/or the Director General Defence Estates, within one month of the date on which a certified copy of this order is presented before the said Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi, by the petitioner. In case, sanction is refused, the respondents will refund the part/advance sale consideration, which has been paid by the petitioner, along with 10 per cent interest from the date of payment till the date of refund and the refund will be made within one month of the date on which sanction is refused. 9. If the sanction is granted, it shall be communicated to the petitioner through the Cantonment Board, Meerut immediately and from the date of such communication, the petitioner will have one year time for depositing the entire balance sale consideration referred above in four almost equal quarterly instalments, subject to the condition that the last instalment will also include the interest at the rate contemplated in the draft agreement from the date of communication of sanction till the date of actual payment. The interest will be levied only on the unpaid part of the sale consideration. 10. Within one month of the last date of payment of the last instalment including the interest, the Defence Estates Officer Meerut will execute the sale deed as contemplated in the draft agreement SCA I to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 25-11-2005. 11. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid directions. Order Accordingly. ———