Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 49 (BOM)

La BuilDe Corporation v. Union of India

2014-01-09

A.S.OKA, S.C.GUPTE

body2014
JUDGMENT A.S. OKA, J. By order dated 9th September 2013 passed by the Apex Court, a direction has been issued to dispose of this Writ Petition within a period of four months from the date of the said order. Only in view of the order of the Apex Court that we have given priority to the hearing of this Petition though Writ Petitions from the year 1997 are pending in this Court for final hearing which include even matters of senior citizens. On 5th, 11th, 12th December 2013 and today, we have heard Shri Bhagwanji Raiyani, a partner of the Petitioner firm appearing in person, Shri S.R. Rajguru for Union of India and Shri K.J. Presswala for Respondent No. 3-the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment, Pune. With a view to appreciate the submissions, it is necessary to make a reference to the facts of the case in brief. 2. Initially, there were four Petitioners and the present Petitioner was the fourth Petitioner. Later on the names of the first three Petitioners were deleted. On 14th March 1907, the Secretary of State for India in Council granted perpetual lease in respect of the land in question bearing Survey No. 390/2992 and House No. 2401-A admeasuring about 5992.56 sq. meters (for short "the said land") situated within the limits of the Pune Cantonment Board. The lessee was one Jussuff Hussein Jaffer. Subsequently, the said lease was transferred in the joint names of Ms. Khorshed Kaikhsuroo Parvi and Shri D.C. Supariwalla. The said Ms. K.K. Parvi and Shri D.C. Supariwalla assigned leasehold rights in respect of the said land in favour of 1st to 3rd Petitioners in this Petition by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 22nd December 1980. The 1st to 3rd Petitioners by an agreement dated 18th October 1982 agreed to sell, assign or grant development rights in respect of the said land to the 4th Petitioner which is now the only Petitioner in this Petition. There was a dispute between the 1st to 3rd Petitioners and the present Petitioner which was referred to arbitration. An award was made by the learned Arbitrator which was subjected to a challenge by filing an Arbitration Petition in this Court. There was a dispute between the 1st to 3rd Petitioners and the present Petitioner which was referred to arbitration. An award was made by the learned Arbitrator which was subjected to a challenge by filing an Arbitration Petition in this Court. The present Petitioner (original 4th Petitioner) claims that on the basis of the compromise arrived at in the Arbitration Petition, the present Petitioner acquired right, title and interest in respect of the said land from the 1st to 3rd Petitioners. The present Petitioner is relying upon the Power of Attorney executed by the original 1st to 3rd Petitioners in favour of Shri Bhagwanji Raiyani and Shri Rajesh N. Sakla to enable them to carry on development of the said land. 3. The case made out by the Petitioner is that an application was made on 12th October 1992 for grant of building permission and for conversion of the tenure of the said land to free-hold tenure. According to the case of the Petitioner, the said proposal was processed and the Director of Defence Estates directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.36,53,617 being the 25% of the total premium of Rs.1,46,14,468/-. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 1st February 1996 issued to the Constituted Attorney of Shri Supariwalla and Ms. Parvi by the Chief Executive Officer of the Pune Cantonment Board. Accordingly, on 9th February 1996, the Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.36,53,617/-. Reliance is placed on the letter dated 4th April 1996 sent by the 4th Respondent to the Director General of Defence Estates requesting for grant of sanction for conversion. The Petitioner addressed a letter to the 1st Respondent/Union of India on 10th June 1998 complaining about the delay in sanctioning the application. By a letter dated 20th June 1998, the 3rd Respondent demanded a further amount of Rs.13,85,482/- from the Petitioner being 25% of the differential amount payable towards the difference between the premium payable in the year 1996 and the premium payable in the year 1998 for conversion of land into a free-hold land. The Petitioner stated that under protest, he paid the said amount. The Petitioner stated that the correspondence was made on behalf of the Petitioner at all levels and a partner of the Petitioners visited New Delhi and met the Hon'ble Defence Minister from time to time. The Petitioner stated that under protest, he paid the said amount. The Petitioner stated that the correspondence was made on behalf of the Petitioner at all levels and a partner of the Petitioners visited New Delhi and met the Hon'ble Defence Minister from time to time. The Petitioner received a letter dated 9th February 2001 from 3rd Respondent demanding an amount of Rs. 21,42,515/- based on 'STR' for the period from 1st August 2000 to 31st July 2001. By further letter dated 10th February 2003, the 3rd Respondent informed the Petitioner that the total premium payable was enhanced to Rs. 6,43,67,417/- for the period ending July 2002. The Petitioner addressed letters of protest on 13th February 2003 to the 3rd Respondent and on 25th February 2003 to the 4th Respondent-the Hon'ble Defence Minister. 4. By way of amendment to the Petition, it was pleaded that after filing of the Petition, the application of the Petitioner for conversion of the said land into free hold land was rejected by relying upon a Circular dated 18th June 1982 on the ground that the conversion will be restricted to the built-up area subject to the ceiling laws and the remaining area will have to be surrendered by the grantee. It is pointed out that a large amount of Rs. 50,39,049/- was already parted with by the Petitioner. The challenge in the Petition is to the communication dated 5th January 2004 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the Petitioner by which the Petitioner was called upon to submit a fresh proposal for conversion of only authorized built up area. There is a prayer made in the Petition for quashing and setting aside the said communication. Further, a declaration is sought that the demand of amount in excess of Rs.1,46,14,468/- is unlawful and null and void. A prayer is also made for quashing and setting aside the enhanced demand. There is also a challenge to the Circular dated 18th June 1982 to the extent to which it restricts conversion only to the built-up area and to the extent to which it provides that the remaining area has to be surrendered by the grantee. A prayer is also made for quashing and setting aside the enhanced demand. There is also a challenge to the Circular dated 18th June 1982 to the extent to which it restricts conversion only to the built-up area and to the extent to which it provides that the remaining area has to be surrendered by the grantee. Another prayer is for grant of conversion from leasehold to free hold upon deposit of the sum of Rs.95,75,419/- after adjusting interest payable to the Petitioner at the rate of 15% per annum on the premium amount of Rs.50,39,049/- already paid by the Petitioner from the respective dates of payment till the date of conversion of the said land to a freehold land. 5. The partner of the Petitioner appearing in person has made extensive submissions. He invited our attention to the letter dated 1st February 1996 addressed by the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Pune to the Constituted Attorney of the deceased Ms. Parvi and Shri Supariwalla. He pointed out that the said letter shows that on payment of the sum of Rs.1,46,14,468/- the Respondents agreed to convert the leasehold tenure of the said land into a free-hold tenure. He also relied upon the communication dated 4th April 1996 addressed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Pune to the Director of Defence Estates recommending the proposal for conversion of the said land. He pointed out that though a decision was taken to allow conversion, subsequently by a letter dated 9th February 2001, a demand was made for differential amount of Rs. 21,42,515/-. He invited our attention to the correspondence made by the Petitioners. He invited our attention to a statement annexed to the Petition containing the particulars of the properties for which permission has been granted for conversion into free-hold. He invited our attention to the Circular dated 18th June 1982 and submitted that in case none of the 198 properties in Pune for which the conversion into free hold tenure was allowed, the provision in the circular regarding the surrender of open area was implemented. By placing a copy of the plan of the proposed development of the said land on record, he submitted that there are no open spaces available which could be surrendered. By placing a copy of the plan of the proposed development of the said land on record, he submitted that there are no open spaces available which could be surrendered. He submitted that the clause in the said circular in relation to the conversion only to the extent of built-up area and the requirement of surrender of open area has not been implemented in any cantonment in India and it is only in case of the Petitioner that the same is sought to be implemented. He submitted that the so called policy of 18th June 1982 is not even gazetted and, there is nothing on record to show that the said policy has the approval of the concerned Cabinet Minister. He relied upon certain documents obtained by him from the record of the Ministry of Defence. He submitted that internal notings indicate that the provisions of the policy are unfair and impracticable. He relied upon the communication dated 17th September 2004 issued by the Directorate of Defence Services issued by the Principal Director of the Defence Estates to Additional Director of Defence Estates. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Panch am Chand and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, Appeal (Civil) No. 1732 of 2008 decided on 4th March 2008 : 12008 ALL SCR 1396]. He relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Joint Action Committee of Airline Pilots’ Associates of India & Ors. v. The Director General of Civil Aviation and Another, WP (L) No. 1462 of 2008 decided on 1st July 2008. Relying upon the said decisions, he urged that only because the application for conversion remained pending from the year 1992 due to delay on the part of the Government machinery, the conversion charges payable at the rate enhanced subsequently cannot be demanded in as much as the rate of premium/conversion cost which was prevailing on 12th October 1992 when the application for conversion was made will have to be applied to the case of the Petitioner. He urged that the Circular dated 18th June 1982 does not provide for charging premium at the rate enhanced on a date subsequent to the date of the application. He urged that the Circular dated 18th June 1982 does not provide for charging premium at the rate enhanced on a date subsequent to the date of the application. In that behalf, he relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Dev Raj Gupta and Others, (1991)1 SCC 63 and Union of India and Another v. Mahajan Industries Ltd and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 203 . Lastly he also relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Daya Wanti Punj, New Delhi and Others v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1982 Delhi 534. He urged that the rate of premium which was applicable as on 12th October 1992 is payable by the Petitioner which has been already quantified in the letter dated 1st February 1996 (Exhibit-E to the Petition). 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents pointed out that the application dated 12th October 1992 was returned to the Petitioner as certain objections were raised thereon. Thereafter, on 4th January 1996, Shri Rajesh Sakla, the Constituted Attorney of Shri D.C. Supariwalla and Ms. Parvi made a fresh application for the grant of conversion. By a letter dated 3rd April 1998, the Government of India raised various objections to the said Application. By a letter dated 22nd May 1998, the Cantonment Executive Officer, Pune informed Shri Rajesh Sakla to submit a fresh application. Accordingly, a fresh application was submitted by him on 25th July 1998. He, therefore, urged that the Petitioner never pressed his application made on 12th October 1992 and in fact, he made fresh applications in the years 1996 and 1998. He, therefore, submitted that the revised land policy of 1995 will apply, and therefore, the premium/conversion cost is payable on the basis of STR in force at the relevant point of time when the Applicant makes the balance payment. He urged that the demand is consistent with the policy. He relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chandigarh Administration and Another v. Jagjit Sing and Another, AIR 1995 SC 705 . He stated that merely because the concerned authority has granted relief to others, the same will not entitle the Petitioner to claim the same relief. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India also supported the impugned action. He stated that merely because the concerned authority has granted relief to others, the same will not entitle the Petitioner to claim the same relief. The learned counsel appearing for the Union of India also supported the impugned action. Shri Raiyani, the partner of the Petitioner submitted in the rejoinder that the amount of Rs.50 lacs and more has been unlawfully retained by the Cantonment Board. The Petitioner has suffered huge loss which needs to be compensated on the basis of actual damage. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent invited our attention to the affidavit dated 13th December 2013 filed by Shri Venkat Nagi Reddy, the Chief Executive Officer of Pune Cantonment Board in which it is admitted that the sum of Rs.50,39,099/- paid by the Petitioner has been retained by the Cantonment Board. 7. We have carefully considered the submissions. The Petitioner is claiming through the lessees of the Union of India in respect of the said land. The Petitioner is seeking conversion of the said land from leasehold tenure to free-hold tenure. The Union of India is the owner of the said land and the Petitioner is claiming through the lessees of the Union of India. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not claimed any statutory or contractual right of conversion to free hold tenure. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek conversion as a matter of right. The Petitioner can seek conversion only in accordance with the policy, if any, adopted by the Union of India. 8. The first Application made for conversion relied upon by the Petitioner is of 12th October 1992 which is signed by Shri Raiyani as the Constituted Attorney of one Shri GD. Sharma and others, the lessees (the original 1st to 3rd Petitioners). By a letter dated 22nd October 1992, the Chief Executive Officer of the Pune Cantonment Board raised various objections including the objection that the area to be made free hold is not shown in the distinctive colour and the existing built up area statement was not submitted. It also recorded that a constituted attorney of the lessees has signed the application on the basis of a power of attorney of the year 1981 the validity of which was not confirmed by the lessees. The said letter records that freehold application with plans was being returned to the Petitioner along with the said letter. It also recorded that a constituted attorney of the lessees has signed the application on the basis of a power of attorney of the year 1981 the validity of which was not confirmed by the lessees. The said letter records that freehold application with plans was being returned to the Petitioner along with the said letter. In fact, the letter dated 1st February 1996 (Exhibit-E) by which a demand for a sum of Rs.1,46,14,468/- was made is on the basis of the Application dated 4th January 1996. After receipt of the communication dated 22nd October 1992 along with which the original application was returned, a fresh application was filed on 4th January 1996 by Rajesh Sakla, the Constituted Attorney of Shri D.C. Supariwalla and Ms. Parvi. The Petitioner abandoned his earlier application of 12th October 1992 and made a fresh application on 4th January 1996. By a letter dated 9th April 1998, the Government of India informed the Principal Director, DE, the Ministry of Defence that various objections were raised as regards the application dated 12th October 1992. By a communication dated 22nd May 1998 issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer to the Director General of Defence Estates, it was stated that on receipt of a fresh application from Rajesh Sakla and on payment of 25% difference of conversion cost, the same will be forwarded for sanction. The Cantonment Executive Officer, Pune addressed a letter dated 22nd May 1998 to Rajesh Sakla calling upon him to make a fresh application in the prescribed form. Accordingly, he forwarded a fresh application along with plans on 27th May 1998 to the Chief Executive Officer of the Pune Cantonment Board. It will be necessary to make a reference to what is stated in the said application which is signed by Shri Rajesh Sakla, the constituted attorney of the lessees (the original 1st to 3rd Petitioners). The said letter reads thus: "Ref: Your Letter dated 22/5/98 No. 2401/AGT Road/FH. Sub: Free hold of House No. 2401 A, S.No. 390/2992, East Street Pune. The said letter reads thus: "Ref: Your Letter dated 22/5/98 No. 2401/AGT Road/FH. Sub: Free hold of House No. 2401 A, S.No. 390/2992, East Street Pune. We are enclosing herewith application W.R.T. to above referred property as per the latest G.L.R. We are willing to pay the difference in S.T.R. We request you kindly do the needful at your earliest." The said letter records that the Shri Rajesh Sakla, the constituted attorney of the lessees (the original 1st to 3rd Petitioners) was willing to pay difference in the STR. Thus, the Application dated 12th October 1992 was not pressed after it was returned along with the communication dated 22nd October 1992 and in fact a fresh Application as aforesaid was made on 4th January 1996. On the basis of the letter dated 22nd May 1998 issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Pune, Mr. Rajesh Sakla made another application on 27th May 1998. 9. The Petitioner's partner appearing in person has placed heavy reliance on the communication dated 1st February 1996 addressed by the Cantonment Executive Officer, Pune to Rajesh Sakla, the Constituted Attorney of late D.S. Supariwalla and Ms. Parvi. As we have noted earlier, the said letter was issued on the basis of the Application dated 4th January 1996 as stated in the very first paragraph of the said letter. In paragraphs 3 and 4, it is stated thus: "…As per present policy of the Government applicable in such cases, you are required to deposit 25% amount of conversion charges in advance which will be adjusted at the time of full payment on receipt of sanction from the Government. The balance (25% of conversion charges) comes to Rs. 36,53,617/- (Rupees Thirty Six Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventeen Only) for an area admeasuring 63961.30 sq. ft. The total cost of conversion as per current STR from 1st August, 1995 to 31st July, 1996 is calculated as Rs. 1,46,14,468/- (Rupees One Crores Forty Six Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Eight Only). This amount may be deposited with this office either by cheque or by Bank draft. 4. The aforesaid conversion cost is subject to the approval of Govt. of India, Min. of Defence and in fact the balance amount of conversion cost as may be decided by the Govt. is not paid by you within one year from the date of issue of Govt. 4. The aforesaid conversion cost is subject to the approval of Govt. of India, Min. of Defence and in fact the balance amount of conversion cost as may be decided by the Govt. is not paid by you within one year from the date of issue of Govt. sanction the amount of 25% as an advance paid will be forfeited to Govt." (underline supplied) 10. On plain reading of the said communication, it is apparent that a final decision was not taken of permitting conversion. Clause 4 thereof records that even determination of the amount will be subject to the approval of the Government of India and Ministry of Defence. So the said communication cannot be of any help to the Petitioner in support of the contention that the conversion was granted on the basis of the first application dated 12th October 1992. The said letter is issued on the basis of the subsequent Application of 4th January 1996. It is true that by a subsequent communication, the conversion charges based on STR at a higher rate were demanded. The question is whether the conversion charge/cost is required to be paid at the rates prevailing on the date of making the application for conversion or on the date on which the decision on the application is arrived at. 11. We have already pointed out that the Application dated 14th October 1992 was returned, and fresh Applications for conversion were made on 4th January 1996 and 27th May 1998. On 9th February 1995, the Government of India modified the policy dated 18th June 1982. It contains the following modifications:- "9. Revision of land policy in cantonment areas. I am directed to refer to the orders contained in the Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 11013/73D(Lands) dated 18 June, 1982 (SI. No. 5) and subsequent amendments issued thereto on the above subject and to say that in amplification of the instructions contained therein regarding conversion of sites held on resumable tenures/leases in the notified civil areas into free hold, it has been decided that henceforth any application from occupancy holders/lessees for conversion of the site into free hold will be accompanied by an amount equal to 25% (twenty five percent) of the estimated conversion cost. (2) The proposal for conversion to free hold will be referred by the CEO to the higher authorities only after the aforesaid amount as earnest money has been credited in the Consolidated Fund. A photostat and attested copy of the receipt issued by the Cantonment Board to the applicant for this earnest money will form one of the essential enclosures of the conversion proposal. The proposal for conversion to free hold will not be considered if not accompanied with the receipt for payment of earnest money. (3) On receipt of Government sanction for conversion to free hold the applicant concerned will be intimated the total amount payable by him towards conversion and the amount of earnest money deposited by him earlier will be adjusted against the total payment due. The conversion cost will be decided with the approval of the Government on the basis of S.T.R. in force at the relevant point of time when the applicants makes the balance payment. (3-A) In case the balance amount of conversions cost is not paid within a period of one year from the date of issue of communication/office letter the earnest money will be forfeited. (4) In case the proposal for conversion to free hold also includes a request for outright sale of adjoining plot of vacant land as per guide lines laid down in the 1982 policy letter, 25% of the estimated cost of vacant land will also be got ascertained from DEO concerned before being accepted as earnest money. (4-A) This will take effect from the date of its issue i.e. 9.2.1995. All applications pending at the time of issue of this letter will be dealt with under the instructions contained in this letter." (underlines supplied) 12. The first clause of the revised policy shows that the Application for conversion will be accompanied by 25% of the estimated conversion cost. Clause (3) clearly provides that the conversion cost will be decided with the approval of the Government of India on the basis of the STR in force at the relevant time when the Applicant makes the balance payment. Clause (2) provides that on receipt of the Government sanction for conversion to free hold, the applicant concerned will be intimated the total amount payable by him. Thus, the question of payment of balance amount will arise only after the sanction to conversion is accorded by the Government of India. Clause (2) provides that on receipt of the Government sanction for conversion to free hold, the applicant concerned will be intimated the total amount payable by him. Thus, the question of payment of balance amount will arise only after the sanction to conversion is accorded by the Government of India. Thus, the conversion cost as per the policy of 1995 was to be decided with the prior approval of the Government of India on the basis of the STR in force when the Applicant makes the balance payment. There is no challenge in this Petition to the said revised policy of the year 1995. Therefore, the argument of the Petitioner that the conversion cost will be payable as per the rate prevailing on the date on which the application for conversion is made will have to be rejected. In view of the fact that the revised policy of 1995 will be applicable to the Applications made by the Petitioner, it is not necessary to deal with the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner. The Petitioner cannot rely upon the Application of 12th October 1992. 13. Now we come to a challenge to the part of the policy dated 18th June 1982. The relevant clause is clause (B) which is applicable to Civil Areas. Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause I reads thus : "(B) CIVILAREAS (BAZAR AREAS) I. Sites held on resumable tenures (i) Free-hold rights of sites held on Old Grant and other resumable tenures, which are not required for any Defence/Public purposes would be sold to the occupancy holders on payment of charges as per the following scale. In such cases requests for conversion will be referred to the Local Military Authorities for indicating whether the site is required for any specific project or purpose and the Local Military Authorities shall give their comments/views within two months of such reference. If no reply is received within the stipulated period the Defence Estates authorities will progress cases for conversion without further reference to the Military authorities: (a) Plots of 50 sq. mts. or less 10 times STR (b) Plots of more than 50 sq. mts. but not exceeding 100 sq. mts. 20 times STR (c) Plots more than 100 sq. mts. but not exceeding 200 sq. mts. 25 times STR (d) Plots more than 200 sq. mts. but not exceeding 300 sq. mts. mts. or less 10 times STR (b) Plots of more than 50 sq. mts. but not exceeding 100 sq. mts. 20 times STR (c) Plots more than 100 sq. mts. but not exceeding 200 sq. mts. 25 times STR (d) Plots more than 200 sq. mts. but not exceeding 300 sq. mts. 30 time STR (e) Plots exceeding 300 sq. mts. 40 times STR In these cases the area allowed to be converted into free-hold will be subject to the restrictions relating to the holding of vacant land under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, wherever applicable. (ii) Conversion will be restricted to the built up area and any area that is too small to be independently leased out subject to the ceiling laws, and the remaining area will be surrendered by the grantee." (underline added) 14. The challenge by the Petitioner is to the underlined portion (Clause ii) as quoted above. A proposal for sanction of a development plan of a leasehold land in the Cantonment area cannot be processed unless the leasehold tenure is converted into a free-hold tenure. A reference to the built up area in Clause (ii) above is to the area covered by the structures existing on the land before the development of the land in question. Thus, the policy provides that only the total built up area covered by the existing structures will be converted into free hold subject to ceiling laws. Thus, the development will be permissible on the area of the land converted into free hold which is equivalent to the total built area covered by the existing structures. It provides that on the conversion of the area covering the existing structures, remaining open area will have to be surrendered by the grantee. The built up area in Clause (ii) is the area occupied by the existing structures. The scheme of Clause (ii) appears to be that the conversion only to the extent of the total area occupied by the structures existing on the said land will be permitted and rest of the open areas will have to be surrendered. The built up area in Clause (ii) is the area occupied by the existing structures. The scheme of Clause (ii) appears to be that the conversion only to the extent of the total area occupied by the structures existing on the said land will be permitted and rest of the open areas will have to be surrendered. Only by way of illustration, if the total area of a land to be converted to free hold is 1000 square meters on which there are separate structures covering total area of 600 square meters, the conversion will be permitted only of the total area of 600 square meters provided the relevant ceiling law permits holding of a land to that extent. The remaining area to the extent of 400 square meters will have to be surrendered. This is the policy of the Government which is the exclusive owner of the said land. Therefore, the conversion will have to be permitted subject to the compliance with the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy decision is that the conversion should be permitted only to the extent of the built up area of the existing structures. It, therefore, appears that the scheme is that after conversion from the leasehold to a free hold tenure, the construction can be made on the land having an area equivalent to the total area covered by the original existing structures. While making the development of the portion converted to free hold, the Rules regarding marginal open spaces will have to be followed so that access is available to the occupants of the new building. We do not see how the said policy is arbitrary. There is nothing illegal about the Policy. The Petitioner has relied upon the site plan on page 501 annexed to additional affidavit of the Petitioner dated 17th March 2011. It shows that the total plot area is 5943.99 square meters and the total existing built up are is 2553.3634 square meters. The partner of the Petitioner showed us the proposed plan of development which is in respect of the entire of the said land. He cannot rely upon the same as a development plan cannot be approved unless conversion to free hold is permitted. 15. The partner of the Petitioner showed us the proposed plan of development which is in respect of the entire of the said land. He cannot rely upon the same as a development plan cannot be approved unless conversion to free hold is permitted. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd Respondent is right to the extent that even assuming that the policy of 18th June 1982 is not followed in respect of the other lands, the same will not confer any right on the Petitioner. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Administration of Chandigarh vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) on this aspect. The Apex Court in Paragraph 8 of the said decision held thus : "We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The extra-ordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law - indeed, wherever it is possible, the court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law - but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law". (Underline added) We do not know the basis on which the conversion of lands into free hold was allowed in the individual cases cited by the Petitioner. Nor do we have particulars before us to see whether lands other than the built up areas in these cases were capable of being independently leased out or not. But, even assuming that in several cases conversion has been permitted contrary to the policy, the Petitioner cannot get benefit of the same. It was tried to be contended that the policy is not signed by the concerned Hon'ble Minister and that is not published in a gazette. If the entire policy becomes bad, there is no other policy under which the Petitioner can obtain conversion. Therefore, this argument will not help the Petitioner. 16. The other issue is regarding the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.50,39,099/- received by the Cantonment Board. The affidavit of Shri K. Venkat Nagi Reddy dated 13th December 2013 makes it very clear that the said amount of Rs. 50,39,099/- has been retained by the Cantonment Board and the same has not been transferred to the Central Government. 17. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the forfeiture clause under the policy of 1995 will apply to the Petitioner. 50,39,099/- has been retained by the Cantonment Board and the same has not been transferred to the Central Government. 17. It is not even the case of the Respondents that the forfeiture clause under the policy of 1995 will apply to the Petitioner. Clause 3A of the Policy of 1995 provides that in case the balance amount of conversion cost is not paid within a period of one year from the date of issue of communication demanding the cost, the earnest money will be forfeited. In the case in hand, the earnest money has not been forfeited as the Respondents did not issue such a communication to the Petitioner. But, the amount has not been refunded. From the arguments made before us, it appears that the Petitioner is not interested in obtaining conversion as per the prevailing policy. Therefore, the 3rd Respondent will have to refund the said amount to the Petitioner as it is unlawfully withheld by the Cantonment Board. The amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present Petition. Though the Petitioner has not claimed a relief of refund, his prayer is for adjusting the said amount within interest towards the payment of balance conversion cost. Hence, the relief will have to be moulded by passing an order of refund. If the Petitioner is willing to accept the conversion as per the prevailing policy by making payment of the balance conversion cost and by offering to surrender the land in excess of the built up area, the Petitioner can always request the Cantonment Board to adjust the aforesaid amount within interest thereon at the aforesaid rate towards the cost of the conversion. 18. Hence, we pass the following order. ORDER: (a) The substantive challenge in the Petition fails and hence, the prayers in the Petition are rejected. However, we direct the 3rd Respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 50,39,099/- to the Petitioner together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Petition till the date of payment or realization of the amount; (b) Time of three months is granted to the 3rd Respondent to pay the aforesaid amount to the Petitioner; (c) It will be open for the Petitioner to claim adjustment of the amount with interest as indicated in Paragraph 17 above. However, the Petitioner will have to exercise the said option within a period of two months from today; (d) The rest of the prayers are rejected; (e) As none appears for the Applicants in Civil Application No. 1320 of 2013, we reject the same. However, we keep open the rights and contentions of the Applicants therein and their remedies are also kept open. The other pending Civil Applications stand disposed of; (f) The rule is made partly absolute only to the aforesaid extent. Ordered accordingly.