Judgment T. Nandakumar Singh, J. This is the third time the petitioner approached this Court for the same relief: (i) declare that the respondents are not entitled to deprive the petitioner of the adjoining vacant land which is a part and parcel of conversion of the petitioner's lease hold right of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) into free hold and (ii) direction to the respondents to include the adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 sq. ft. or 1116.29 sq. m. in conversion process initiated in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 sq. ft. or 1360.15 sq. m. and (iii) declare that the respondents are bound by their own offer and the acceptance made by the petitioner in the conversion process initiated in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part). Heard Mr. M.F. Quershi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1-4. Also heard Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 & 6. 2. Factual background:- It is stated that the petitioner is a lessee in respect of Holding No. 58 CB and Survey No. 15/87 of Cantonment Shillong, District East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya for the last about 20 years. The Cantonment Executive Officer (N Nath) under his letter dated 06.09.1994, asked the petitioner her acceptance in writing to pay the conversion value for lease hold No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part), Shillong Cantonment into free hold right as per the rule at the rate that will be enforced when the case of conversion will be considered by the Govt. "The Govt." for the Cantonment Area under the Cantonments Act, 2006 is "the Central Govt." The said letter dated 06.09.1994 was followed by another letter of the Cantonment Executive Officer (P.N.B. Sarma) dated 10.12.1996, asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,26,386/- (Rupees two lacs twenty six thousand three hundred eight six) only in reference to the application dated 19.04.1996 filed by the petitioner; in that letter, it is clearly stated that the case of the petitioner is being processed to the Govt. for conversion of the lease hold right into free hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 sq. ft. or 1360.15 sq. m. and the adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 sq. ft. for conversion of the lease hold right into free hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 sq. ft. or 1360.15 sq. m. and the adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 sq. ft. or 1023.33 sq. m. Further, the petitioner had been requested to give her willingness for conversion on the final rate as approved by the sanctioning authority (Govt. of India). As the petitioner filed the repeated writ petitions basing on the two said letters dated 06.09.1994 and 10.12.1996, it will be more profitable to quote those two said letters hereunder:- No. 7D-5/1/72/C Office of the Cantonment Board, Post Box No. 83, Shillong-793001. Dated the 06 Sep. 94. To, Smti. Abida Khatoon & Ors Lessee of Holding No. 58 CB Sy. No. 15/87(Part), Shillong Cantt. Trenching Ground Road, Shillong-2. Sub: Holding No. 58 CB: conversion of Lease Holding right into Free Hold. Ref: Your letter dated 08.08.94 & 18.08.94 Would you kindly let this office know in writing that you are agreeing to pay the conversion value for lease hold right into Free Hold which become payable as per rule at the rate that will be inforce while the case of the conversion will be considered by the Govt. Your willingness in writing should reach this office at the earliest as that the matter can be put before the Board for further consideration for initiating proposal to the higher authorities. (emphasis supplied) Please treat this as most urgent. Sd/- N. Nath, Cantonment Executive Officer (N. Nath) No. SHG/7/58 CB/838 Office of the Cantonment Board, Post Box No. 83, Shillong-793001. Dated the 10th Dec 96. To, 1. Smti. Abida Khatoon 2. Md. Sadique, 58 CB, Shillong Cantt. Sub: Conversion of Lease Hold Right into Free Holding No. 58 CB Sy. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sft. Or 1360.15 Sq. Mt. and adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 Sft. Or 1023.33 Sq. m. Ref: Your application dated 19.04.96. You are hereby requested to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,26,386 being the 25% of the total conversion value (Total conversion value Rs. 9,05,545.00) (approx subject to any change of calculation made by the DEO Guwahati) for processing your case to the Govt. for conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sft. Or 1360.15 Sqm and adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 Sft. 9,05,545.00) (approx subject to any change of calculation made by the DEO Guwahati) for processing your case to the Govt. for conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sft. Or 1360.15 Sqm and adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 Sft. or 1023.33 Sqm. Further you have to give your willingness for conversion on the final rate as approved by sanctioning authority (Govt. of India). Full payment should be completed within a period of 5 (five) years after sanction by the Govt. of India. Interest 10% per annum on the unpaid balance will be charged. (emphasis supplied) Authority: CBR No. 14 dt. 29.11.96. Sd/- Cantonment Executive Officer (P.N.B. Sarma) 3. Pursuant to the said letters, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,26,386/- (Rupees two lacs twenty six thousand three hundred eight six) only. The Cantonment Executive Officer (P.N.B. Sarma) also issued a receipt No. 141949 dated 13.12.1996 for received of the said amount from the petitioner. The Cantonment Executive Officer (P.N.B. Sarma) under his letter dated 07.02.1997, informed the petitioner that for processing her case for conversion of the lease hold right of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sq. ft. or 1360.15 Sq. m. and adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. to the higher authorities, the petitioner is required to deposit the balance amount of earnest money i.e. 25% of the conversion value of Rs. 9,40,870/- (Rs. 2,35,217.00-2,26,386.00 = 8,832.00) amounting to Rs. 8,832/- i.e. (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred thirty two) only at an early date. In pursuance to the said letter dated 07.02.1997, the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs. 8,832/- (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred thirty two) only. For easy reference, the said letter dated 07.02.1997 is also quoted hereunder:- No. SHG/7/58 CB/975 Office of the Cantonment Board, Post Box No. 83, Shillong-793001. Dated the 07 Feb. 97. To, 1. Smti. Abida Khatoon 2. Md. Sadique, 58 CB, Shillong Cantt. Sub: Conversion of Lease Hold Right into Free Hod-Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) Measuring 14640 SFT. Dated the 07 Feb. 97. To, 1. Smti. Abida Khatoon 2. Md. Sadique, 58 CB, Shillong Cantt. Sub: Conversion of Lease Hold Right into Free Hod-Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) Measuring 14640 SFT. OR 1360.15 SQM and Adjoining Vacant Land Measuring 116.29 SQM In continuation to this office letter No. SHG/7/58CB dated 13.12.96 the calculation for free hold was made erroneously on 2383.48 Sqm instead of 2476.44 Sqm and the same has been rectified by the Board vide CBR No. 7 dated 28.1.97. Hence the conversion value comes to Rs. 940870/- only instead of Rs. 9,05,545.00 only. You are therefore, required to deposit the balance amount of earnest money i.e. 25% of the conversion value of Rs. 9,40,870.00 (Rs. 2,35,217.00-2,26,386.00 =8,832.00) amounting to Rs. 8,832.00 (Rupees eight thousand eight hundred thirty two) only at an early date for processing your case to the higher authorities. (emphasis supplied) Sd/- Cantonment Executive Officer (P.N.B. Sarma) 4. As the respondents failed to convert the lease hold right into free hold without assigning any reason, the petitioner submitted series of representations. But at last, the respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 24.08.2000, that the proposal for conversion of the lease hold right into free hold of Holding No. 58 CB having an area of 1360.15 Sq. m. plus adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. was initiated to the Dte. of DE, EC and Dte. of DE, EC has already forwarded the case of the Dte. General, DE New Delhi, who in turn has forwarded the case to the Ministry of Defence for their decision. As soon as the decision is received, the case will be processed. The said letter dated 24.08.2000 reads as follows:- No. SHG/7/58 CB Office of the Cantonment Board, Post Box No. 83, Shillong-793001. Dated the 24th Aug 2000. To, Smti. Abida Khatoon & Ors Lessee of Holding No. 58 CB Sy. No. 15/87(Part), Shillong Cantonment. Sub: Conversion of Lease Hold Right into Free hold of Holding No. 58CB and land adjacent to it. Ref: Your letter No. NIL dt. 11.8.2000. This is to inform you that proposal for conversion of lease hold right into free hold, Holding No. 58 CB area of the Holding 1360.15 Sqm plus the adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sqm-2476.44 Sqm) was initiated to the Dte. of DE, EC vide this office letter No. SHG/7/58 CB/102 dt. Ref: Your letter No. NIL dt. 11.8.2000. This is to inform you that proposal for conversion of lease hold right into free hold, Holding No. 58 CB area of the Holding 1360.15 Sqm plus the adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sqm-2476.44 Sqm) was initiated to the Dte. of DE, EC vide this office letter No. SHG/7/58 CB/102 dt. 26.02.1997 on receipt of Rs. 2,35,210/- being the earnest money. The Dte. of DE, EC has already forwarded the case to the Dte. General, DE, New Delhi who in turn has forwarded the case to the Ministry of Defence for their decision. As soon as the decision is received the case will be processed. (emphasis supplied) Sd/- Cantonment Executive Officer 5. As the case of the petitioner for conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sq. ft. or 1360.15 Sq. m. and adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. was kept pending for a considerable period without any justifications, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 339(SH)2003. 6. Respondent No. 5 also filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein, it is stated that the proposal for conversion of lease hold right into free hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) along with adjacent vacant land was intimated to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence for approval. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, it is clearly stated that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence is the authority to take decision for the conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) along with the adjacent vacant land which is within the Cantonment area and that there is no definite representation or promise from the side of the competent authority that the petitioner's lease hold right of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) along with the adjacent vacant land would be converted into free hold right. But the representation/indication made by the respondent No. 5 in all those letters mentioned above, is only that the petitioner shall give her willingness in writing to pay the earnest money for processing the conversion of the lease hold right in respect of the said Holding and adjoining vacant land into free hold land and the Govt. But the representation/indication made by the respondent No. 5 in all those letters mentioned above, is only that the petitioner shall give her willingness in writing to pay the earnest money for processing the conversion of the lease hold right in respect of the said Holding and adjoining vacant land into free hold land and the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence is the final authority to take the decision. 7. Writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 339(SH)2003, had been disposed of by passing the final judgment and order dated 14.05.2008, with the directions that the respondents should expedite the approval of the conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58, Cantonment, Shillong within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. The final judgment and order dated 14.05.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 339(SH)2003 reads as follows:- 14.05.2008 Heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mr. S.R. Sen, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. Sen, for the respondents. The limited prayer of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is that as per the offer dated 6th Sept. 1994 given by the respondents for conversion of Lease Hold rights into Free Hold of Holding No. 58 CB, Cantonment, and land adjacent to it was offered to the petitioner and the petitioner has paid the amount to the respondents, the receipt of which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The respondents have been delaying the approval of the conversion for the last so many years and therefore, through this writ petition, the petitioner is praying for a direction to the respondents to expedite and take early decision in the matter of the said conversion of the lease holding rights. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents. The respondents have also filed their counter, in para 9 of the counter the respondents admitted the factual position and that the matter was initiated by the higher authorities and the matter is pending final approval. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned senior counsel for the respondents. The respondents have also filed their counter, in para 9 of the counter the respondents admitted the factual position and that the matter was initiated by the higher authorities and the matter is pending final approval. Considering the admitted fact that the offer was made, the payment has been made and the matter is under consideration, it is not understood as to why the matter has been kept pending and no positive approval has been granted by the respondents.Considering the matter in its entire prospective and the admitted position of the matter, I proposed to dispose of this case with the following directions. It is therefore directed that the respondents should expedite the approval for the said conversion of lease hold rights into free hold holding in respect of holding No. 58 CB, Cantonment, Shillong, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. The interim order passed on 13.11.2003 also stands vacated in view of the disposal of this writ petition. (emphasis supplied) 8. In pursuance of the said final judgment and order dated 14.05.2008, the case of the petitioner for conversion of lease hold right of Holding No. 58, GLR Sy. No. 15/87 measuring 14640 Sq. ft. had been processed and the President of India granted sanction for conversion of free hold right in respect of the said Holding and the Defence State Officer, Guwahati Circle, Guwahati under his letter dated 23.10.2008 informed the petitioner accordingly. It is the further case of the petitioner that the final judgment and order dated 14.05.2008 of the Hon'ble High Court is to be read in such a manner that the Hon'ble High Court had directed the respondents to expedite the approval of conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sq. ft. or 13.60.15 Sq. m. and the adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order, and as such the sanction of the President of India for conversion of the free hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. ft. or 13.60.15 Sq. m. and the adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and order, and as such the sanction of the President of India for conversion of the free hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) only is not the full compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the said judgment and order dated 14.05.2008. The petitioner also sent Notice dated 20.11.2008 to (i) The Director General, DE Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, New Delhi-10 (ii) The Principal Director, DE Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, Eastern Command 13, Camac Street, Kolkata-17 (iii) The Defence Estate Officer, Guwahati Circle, Silphukari Guwahati-3 and (iv) The Chief Cantonment Officer, Shillong Cantt., Shillong-1 for conversion of the lease hold right of the petitioner into free hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) along with adjoining land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. The Defence State Officer, Guwahati Circle, Guwahati under his letter dated 26.11.2008, informed that as the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment and order dated 14.05.2008 were only in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sq. ft. or 1360.15 Sq. m. and the Hon'ble High Court did not pass any order for adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m., the petitioner was to deposit the balance amount without further loss of time to enable the office to take further necessary action. The said letter dated 26.11.2008 reads as follows:- Speed Post/Regd. Post No. DEO/GAU/LAND/S-15/87/36 Office of the DEO, Guwahati Circle P.O. Silpukhuri, Guwahati-781003 Dated the 26 Nov, 2008 To, Smt. Abida Khatoon Holding No. 58 CB Cantonment, Shillong-793002 Subject: Non Compliance with The Judgment and Order Dated 14.5.2008 Passed by The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court, Shillong Bench in Respect of Conversion of Lease Hold Right into Free Hold of Holding of 58 CB, SY. No. 15/87 (Part) Measuring 14640 SQ. FT. OR 1360.15 SQ. M and Adjoining Vacant Land Measuring 1116.29 SQ. M (Total: 2476.44 SQ. M) Madam, Reference your letter dt. 20 November 2008. 2. It is to inform you that GOI, MOD (DG, DE) vide their letter No. 702/9/L/DE/97 dt. No. 15/87 (Part) Measuring 14640 SQ. FT. OR 1360.15 SQ. M and Adjoining Vacant Land Measuring 1116.29 SQ. M (Total: 2476.44 SQ. M) Madam, Reference your letter dt. 20 November 2008. 2. It is to inform you that GOI, MOD (DG, DE) vide their letter No. 702/9/L/DE/97 dt. 22 Aug 2008 has conveyed sanction of the President for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold in holding No. 58 CB Shillong Cantt strictly in consonance with the judgment and order dated 14.5.2008 of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court, Shillong Bench. 3. Your attention is invited towards last two lines of unnumbered para 3 and subsequent paras of Hon'ble High Guwahati Courts order dated 14.5.2008, which has been reproduced below:- Considering the matter in its entire prospective and the admitted position of the matter, I proposed to dispose off this case with the following directions. It is therefore directed that the respondents should expedite the approval for the said conversion of lease hold rights into free hold holding in respect of holding No. 58 CB, Cantonment, Shillong, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. With the above directions, this writ petition stands disposed off. The interim passed on 13.11.2003 also stands vacated in view of the disposal of this writ petition. 4. It can be seen from the above paras that Hon'ble Judge has only passed orders for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold holding in respect of holding No. 58 CB only. The Hon'ble Court has not passed any order for adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 S.m. 5. Your allegation that the competent authority has not complied with the Judgment and order dated 14.5.2008 is totally baseless. 6. In view of the above facts the undersigned wants to intimate you that the competent authority has complied with Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench's order dated 14.4.2008 in toto. 7. You are advised to deposit balance amount as asked for vide this office letter No. DEO/GAU/LANDS/S-15/87 dt. 23 Oct 2008 without further loss of time to enable this office to take further necessary action in this matter. Yours faithfully, Defence Estates Officer Guwahati Circle. 9. 7. You are advised to deposit balance amount as asked for vide this office letter No. DEO/GAU/LANDS/S-15/87 dt. 23 Oct 2008 without further loss of time to enable this office to take further necessary action in this matter. Yours faithfully, Defence Estates Officer Guwahati Circle. 9. The petitioner for the second time approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 224(SH) 2009 against the present respondents for a direction to the respondents to take decision for conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB Sy. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 14640 Sq. ft. or 1360.15 Sq. m. and adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 Sq. ft. or 1116.29 Sq. m. (total 2476.44 Sq. m.) in the light admitted position based on which, judgment and order dated 14.05.2008 was passed by the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No. 339(SH)2003. The Writ Petition No. 224(SH) 2009 had been disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 01.11.2010 by interpreting the judgment and order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 14.05.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 339(SH) 2003 in such a manner that "without expressing any opinion on the merit of the aforesaid stand of the respondents and having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the direction contained in the above quoted order dated 14.05.2008 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 339(SH) 2003 must be construed to be a direction for consideration of the case of the petitioner for conversion of the adjacent land as well from lease hold right into free hold. The stand of the respondents, that in view of the direction contained in the earlier order that the only requirement is to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion only in respect of Holding No. 58 CB, Cantonment, Shillong is not borne on record. They are also required to consider the case of the petitioner for conversion of the adjacent land as well. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take into consideration for conversion from lease hold land to that of free hold land not only in respect of Holding No. 58 CB Cantonment, Shillong but also in respect of the adjacent vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. for which the earlier writ petition was filed. m. for which the earlier writ petition was filed. Let the consideration be made as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 31.01.2011, by which time, it is expected that the petitioner would be intimated about the outcome of such consideration. Writ petition is disposed of. Without, however, any order as to costs." 10. The Executive Officer, Shillong Cantt. under his letter dated 10.11.2011 informed the petitioner that in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 01.11.2010 passed in WP(C) No. 224(SH) 2009, a proposal for consideration of the case had been intimated to the competent authority and the competent authority after due consideration rejected the request for conversion of the adjacent land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. into free hold on the basis of the existing policy for free hold land. Being aggrieved by the said letter dated 10.11.2011, filed the present writ petition for quashing the impugned letter dated 10.11.2011 and also for a direction to the respondents to include adjoining vacant land measuring 11011 Sq. ft. or 1116.29 Sq. m. in conversion of the lease hold right in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) into free hold. The Cantonment Executive Officer under his letters intimated the petitioner the proposal for conversion of lease hold right into free hold in respect of Holding No. 58 CB SY. No. 15/87 (Part) measuring 1360.15 Sq. m. along with adjacent vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. to the competent authority and asked the petitioner to pay the earnest money for initiating the proposal to the competent authority, and the respondent No. 5 in a categorical terms stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that for the Cantonment area, the competent Govt. is the Central Govt. and the Central Govt. is only the competent authority to take decision for converting lease hold right in respect of holding within the Cantonment area into free hold. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 that in fact the answering respondent in compliance to Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order dated 01.11.2010 placed the matter for outright sale of adjacent vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. before the Board vide Special CBR No. 2 dated 20.11.2010 apprising the Board that the Govt. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5 that in fact the answering respondent in compliance to Hon'ble Gauhati High Court's order dated 01.11.2010 placed the matter for outright sale of adjacent vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. before the Board vide Special CBR No. 2 dated 20.11.2010 apprising the Board that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence vide letter No. 7/PMO/US/D (LAND)/97 dated 03.09.1997 has directed that the matter relating to the alienation of the Defence Land was considered at the level of the Prime Minister, who has instructed "No transfer/alienation of Defence Land shall take place without Cabinet approval". 11. The respondent No. 5 also stated in his affidavit-in-opposition that the proposal had been initiated to the competent authority to take further necessary action for consideration of the case for the outright sale of adjacent vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. vide office No. SHG/7/58 CB/212 dated 06.12.2010; and the concerned authority vide letter No. 702/9/L/DE/97 dated 04.11.2011, referred the matter to the Ministry of Defence for taking a decision in the matter. The concerned Ministry had rejected the request for conversion of the adjoining vacant land to free hold as per the policy decision of the Govt. of India not to convert the Defence land into a private land or free hold and not to sell the Defence vacant land. The relevant portion of para 35 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 5 read as follows:- 35. ............. Accordingly, the competent authority vide letter No. 702/9/L/DE/97 dated 4/11/2011 had intimated that the matter was referred to Ministry of Defence for taking a decision in the same and the competent authority has rejected the request for conversion in to free hold of the adjacent land on the basis of existing policy of free hold and also in view of the resolution of the Cantonment Board, Shillong that the subject land is required for Municipal purposes and not recommending the outright sale of adjacent land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. to Holding No. 58 CB Sy. No. 15/87 (pt), Shillong Cantonment and the same has been communicated to the petitioner vide this office letter No. SHG/7/58CB/454 Dt. 10.11.2011. 12. m. to Holding No. 58 CB Sy. No. 15/87 (pt), Shillong Cantonment and the same has been communicated to the petitioner vide this office letter No. SHG/7/58CB/454 Dt. 10.11.2011. 12. This Court in the course of hearing of the present writ petition put pointed questions to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner:- (i) What is the right of the petitioner for claiming conversion of the said adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. into free hold in her favour? and (ii) Who is the competent authority for taking a decision for conversion of the Defence vacant land into free hold? The only answer from the side of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also from the pleadings in the writ petition is that the Cantonment Executive Officer in his letters which had been quoted above had given the assurance/representation/promise that adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sq. m. which is a part of the Cantonment area i.e. the Defence vacant land will be converted to free hold on the payment of conversion value as per rule. Now the questions fall for consideration in the present writ petition are:- (i) Was there any representation or promise or assurance from the side of the competent authority to the petitioner that adjoining vacant land measuring 1116.29 Sqf. m. or 1023.33 Sq. m. located in the Cantonment area or Defence vacant land would be converted into free hold on the payment of the conversion value?; (ii) Whether the Cantonment Executive Officer, even if there was or there were representations or assurances to the petitioner in his letters mentioned above for conversion of the adjoining vacant land to free hold to the petitioner, is competent to make such assurance? and; (iii) Was there a direction of the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment and order dated 14.05.2008 to the respondents to convert the adjoining vacant land which is a part of the Cantonment area or Defence vacant land into free hold in favour of the writ petitioner? 13. Admittedly, the adjoining vacant land in question is within the Cantonment area; and under the Cantonments Act, 2006, it is clear that the appropriate Govt. is the Central Govt. The concerned Ministry of the Central Govt. 13. Admittedly, the adjoining vacant land in question is within the Cantonment area; and under the Cantonments Act, 2006, it is clear that the appropriate Govt. is the Central Govt. The concerned Ministry of the Central Govt. is the competent authority to take the policy decision or decision for converting or selling part of the Cantonment area or Defence vacant land to the private individual inasmuch as the conversion of adjoining vacant land into free hold is nothing but selling of that adjoining vacant land to the petitioner. On plain perusal of the letters of the Cantonment Executive Officer mentioned above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner had been asked to give her willingness to initiate the proposal for conversion of the lease hold right into free hold in respect of the said holding and adjoining vacant land to the higher authorities i.e. the Govt. of India. It is also very clear from the Cantonments Act, 2006 that the Cantonment Board is not the competent authority to take the policy decision for selling or converting the Defence vacant land i.e. within the Cantonment area to the private individual land. The Cantonment Executive Officer is not the competent authority to give assurance or representation or promise to the petitioner that the adjoining vacant land will be converted to free hold nor there was such assurance or representation or promise made by the Cantonment Executive Officer. 14. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, it is crystal clear that under the existing policy decision of the Govt. of India, there should not be selling of the part of the Defence vacant land or Cantonment area to the private individual and also that the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence is required to take approval of the highest authority i.e. the Prime Minister/Cabinet in the case of transferring or selling part of the Defence vacant land/Cantonment area. In the given case, this Court is of the considered view that the principle of estoppel cannot be invoked for granting the relief sought for in the present writ petition to the writ petitioner. The Apex Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (1979) 2 SCC 409 held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principles of estoppel, but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. The Apex Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (1979) 2 SCC 409 held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is not really based on the principles of estoppel, but it is a doctrine evolved by equity in order to prevent injustice. There is no reason why it should be given only a limited application by way of defence. It can be used as a cause of action. Relevant portion of para 10 of the SCC in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills's case (Supra) reads as follows:- 10...........It is possible that the case also came within the rule of proprietary estoppel enunciated by Lord Kingsdown in Ramsden v. Dyson: (1866) LR 1 HL 129 : 14 WR 926 The rule of law applicable to the case appears to me to be this: if a man, under a verbal agreement with a landlord for a certain interest in land, or what amounts to the same thing, under an expectation, created or encouraged by the landlord that he shall have a certain interest, takes possession of such land, with the consent of the landlord, and upon the faith of such promise or expectation, with the knowledge of the landlord, and without objection by him, lays out money upon the land, a Court of equity will compel the landlord to give effect to such promise or expectation and Spencer Bower and Turner may be right in observing that that was perhaps the reason why it was held that the promise made by Arun District Council gave rise to a cause of action in favour of Crabb. But, on what principle, one may ask, is the distinction to be sustained between promissory estoppel and proprietary estoppel in the matter of enforcement by action. If proprietary estoppel can furnish a cause of action, why should promissory estoppel not? There is no qualitative difference between the two. Both are the off-springs of equity and if equity is flexible enough to permit proprietary estoppel to be used as a cause of action, there is no reason in logic or principle why promissory estoppel should also not be available as a cause of action, if necessary to satisfy the equity. 15. There is no qualitative difference between the two. Both are the off-springs of equity and if equity is flexible enough to permit proprietary estoppel to be used as a cause of action, there is no reason in logic or principle why promissory estoppel should also not be available as a cause of action, if necessary to satisfy the equity. 15. The Apex Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills's case (Supra), clearly held that a proper reading of the observation of the Court in Ramanatha Pillai's case clearly shows that what the Court intended to say was that where the Government owes a duty to the public under law to act differently, promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the Government from doing so. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in the teeth of an obligation or liability imposed by law on the Government. 16. The Apex Court in L.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards & Anr. vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Ors: (1996) 6 SCC 634 held that where GO issued without complying with mandatory requirements of statue, even if promise or representation held out by such GO is acted upon by persons, that would not entitle such person to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel against the Govt. The sanctity of law and the sanctity of the mandatory requirement of the law cannot be allowed to be defeated by resort to rules of estoppel. It cannot therefore, be said that where an act is done in violation of a mandatory provision of a statue, such act can still be made a foundation for invoking the rule of promissory/equitable estoppel. Moreover, when the Govt. acts outside its authority, as in this case, it is difficult to say that it is acting within its ostensible authority. The promise or representation made by the competent authority without following the mandatory requirements of statue, even if acted upon by persons, that would not entitle such person to invoke the principle of promissory estoppel against the Govt. 17. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to change the policy. In the present case, it is the policy of the Govt. 17. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to change the policy. In the present case, it is the policy of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence that part of the Defence vacant land of the Cantonment area shall not be sold out or converted into free hold without the approval of the highest authority i.e. to the extent of the Prime Minister. The Apex Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors: (2011) 3 SCC 193 held that:- 33. Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the Court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the promisee and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary of law. 18. The directions of the Courts in the judgment and orders are to be understood and read in such a manner that the directions of the Courts are only the directions within the four corners of law or lawful directions. The Courts only direct the authorities to take their own decision of the matters which are within their domain and jurisdiction; and the Courts never direct the authorities to take decision in a particular manner in a matter for which the competent authorities are to take their own decision. The part of Courts end with quashing of illegal order/decision of the authorities and left with the authority concerned to take its own decision according to law. The part of Courts end with quashing of illegal order/decision of the authorities and left with the authority concerned to take its own decision according to law. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Union of India & Anr. vs. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr.: (1987) 2 SCC 720 and (ii) in Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Ajit Kumar Kar & Ors: (2008) 11 SCC 591 . 19. It is fairly settled law that the judgment and order are not to be construed as statue and the judgment are not to be interpreted as statue and it may not be necessary for the Judge to embark into lengthy decision in understanding the judgment and orders of the Courts. In other words, judgment and orders are to be read only. The Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors: (2007) 11 SCC 92 held that:- 15. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & another vs. N.R. Vairamani: (2004) 8 SCC 579 : AIR 2004 SC 4778 a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same Judgment this Court also observed: (SCC pp. 584-85, Paras 9-12) 9. Court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of the context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. vs. Horton: 1951 AC 737: (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL) (AC at p. 761), Lord Mac Dermot observed: (All ER p. 14 C-D) The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. ....... 10. In Home Office vs. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd.: 1970 AC 1004 :(1970) 2 WLR 1140 : (1970) 2 All ER 294 (HL) (All ER p. 297 g-h) Lord Reid said, 'Lord Atkin's speech ... is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition; it will require qualification in new circumstances.' Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. vs. Sandham (No. 2): (1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267, observed: (All ER p. 1274d) One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell L. J. as if it were an Act of Parliament. And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board: 1972 AC 877 : (1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 [HL (E)] Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 761c) There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo, J.) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. * * * Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. (Emphasis supplied) 20. Keeping in view of the ratios laid down by the Apex Court in UP. State Electricity Board's case (Supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. case (Supra) and also the settled law that the judgment is not to be interpreted as statue, this Court had carefully perused the operative portion of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 14.05.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 339(SH) 2003 and is of the considered view that the respondents rightly read the judgment and order of the High Court dated 14.05.2008. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.