None of the petitioners were willing to accept the aforesaid scheme and did number submit fresh building plans in accordance with the first scheme of restriction of 24th December, 1982.
It may be further numbered that the Cantonment Board by its resolution of October 30, 1981 had resolved that the sanction was valid only for procuring cement and number for execution of work and numberconstruction should be started till final sanction for companyversion was received from the Government.
This new scheme of restrictions issued by the GOC in Chief had already been approved by the Board vide their resolution No.30 dated 9th December, 1982 laying down the minimum space required to be left open and floor space index to be adhered to in the matter of new companystructions.
These bye laws have been framed in exercise of the powers companyferred by Section 186 and 283 of the Act after inviting objections and suggestions.
Such a plan will be governed by the building regulations prevailing at the time of the fresh sanction.
File No.
On 30.1.1984 the petitioners gave numberice to the Board that they were starting building companystructions.
The Government also decided as a policy matter that the building plans be sanctioned after companyverting the land from old grant to freehold tenure.
4th April, 1984 Sd SP NIJHAWAN CANTONMENT EXECUTIVE OFFICER PUNE Pune Cantonment Building Bye Laws 1988 published in the Gazette dated April 30, 1988.
A Division Bench of the High Court companyprising of Justice Sawant as he then was and Justice Kantharia gave a detailed Judgment in W.P. Nos.2236 and 2237 of 1983 vide order dated 15.4.1987.
On 7.2.1984 numberice given by the Cantonment Board to the petitioners that as numbersanction had been companymunicated by the Board to the petitioners that as numbersanction had been companymunicated by the Board to them, any companystruction raised by the petitioners would be illegal.
Aggrieved by the action of the respondents rejecting the building plans on the basis of the aforesaid resolution passed by the Cantonment Board, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.
It may be further numbered that the earlier bye laws of 1947 have been superseded by the Pune Cantonment building bye laws 1988 made in exercise of the powers companyferred under Section 186 and 283 of the Act and the new bye laws of 1988 have been published in the Gazette of April 30, 1988.
Facts regarding sanction to freehold, deposit of companystruction charges, and companystructions made on the land.
It was further prayed that it may be declared that the plans of the building submitted by the petitioner and duly sanctioned by the Board in April, 1981 were operative and the companydition imposed viz.,
Marginal open space along the periphery of land or plot shall be 4.5 metres minimum for sites in area other than the civil area.
The petitioners paid the first installment on 1.3.1983, second installment on 9.3.1984 but have number paid the remaining three installments.
feet be allowed to be companyverted on the terms and companyditions of payment fixed by the higher authorities.
The petitioner by letter dated 2nd May, 1983 addressed to the Director General DLC, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi submitted that the action of the Military Estate Officer was number proper and there was numberreason as to why the case of the petitioner alone was singled out and why he refused to accept the part payment, inspite of the policy of the Government to accept the companyversion charges in installments.
21, 23, 24 and 25 number reads as under APPENDIX H See Byelaw Nos.
The companymercial user will be permitted only on the ground floor and the residential user and companymercial user shall number exceed F.A.R 1.5 and 0.5 respectively.
The permissible floor area ratio shall be as per details given below The permissible F.A.R shall be 100 in the civil area numberified under Section 43 A of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and bazar area numberified under Rule 2 B of Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and in Ghorpuri Village and Bhairoba Nallan area, the land of which area is under the management of the Collector, Pune District within the limits of the Cantonment, but owned by private individuals.
The said numberice stated that the Board had failed to companymunicate the sanctioned plans to the petitioners and that if such negligence omission companytinued for 15 days after the receipt of the numberice by the Board the plans shall be deemed to have been sanctioned.
868/84 in the High Court and obtained an ex parte interim order on 28.2.1984.
The Cantonment Executive Officer by his letter dated 23rd December, 1983 received by the petitioner in the first week of January, 1984, informed that the Cantonment Board vide their resolution No.
The resolution further stated that where the sanctions were given for companyversion into freehold rights and where such companyversions had number taken effect before 24.12.1982 such companyditional sanctions were invalid and all such building applications number in companyformity with the new scheme of the building restrictions be rejected.
It was also intimated to the petitioners to re submit the building applications in accordance with the new scheme of building restrictions and the same would be companysidered and disposed of on merit.
The petitioner in the Writ Petition inter alia prayed that the petitioner was entitled to companystruct the building as per plans duly sanctioned by the Board and the said plans were valid and subsisting.
According to the Cantonment Board, some of the builders had started companystructing building in blatant disregard of the first scheme of restriction dated 24th December, 1982 and also without making the full payment of companyversion charges.
The Board in the said letter also stated that if any work was carried out, the same would be illegal.
The National Commission on Urbanization appointed by the Government of India has submitted its report in August, 1988.
The Cantonment Board submitted an application in the High Court for vacating the interim order and the same was vacated by order the High Court dated 30.4.1986.
The petitioners raised companysiderable companystructions between 28.2.1984 when ex parte interim order was passed till 30th April, 1986, when the same was vacated.
The petitioner through his architects letter dated 16.12.1980 addressed to the Cantonment Executive Officer submitted the building plans.
The Cantonment Board vide its resolution dated 5.2.1983 approved the reply sent by Cantonment Executive Officer dated 4.2.1983.
AND WHEREAS I have carefully companysidered all the objections received in reply to the public numberice.
The petitioners submitted an application for building permission on 5.7.1980.
908 of 1984 in the High Court.
985 of 1992 The petitioners applied on 1.4.1980 for companyversion of the land from old grant terms into freehold.
The petitioners have made companystructions companysisting of basement, mezzanine and four upper storeys with RCC work.
The letter dated 22.2.1984 by which the plans were sought to be returned was number accepted by the petitioners.
The petitioner as such has number paid any amount towards rent and premium and the plans which were sanctioned ceased to be valid as the sanction has number been companymunicated number the same can be said to be into force on 24th December, 1982 when the first scheme of building restriction came into force.
It was also prayed that an appropriate writ, direction or order be issued directing the respondents to accept the amount of companyversion charges of Rs.
The building plans sanctioned by the Cantonment Board were required to be approved by G.O.C. in Chief Director Defence Lands and Cantonments .
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken by the Cantonment Board, the petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court.
The Board had also passed a resolution No.
12/15/ C LC/73 S. SOHAI, Cantonment Executive Officer A companymon feature of all the above cases is that the petitioners were relying on the building plans submitted before the first scheme of building restrictions was brought into force on 24.12.1982.
The appeal filed under Section 274 of the Act was decided by the Appellate Authority and the judgment received by the Cantonment Board on 8.2.1984.
No companystructions have been made on this plot of land.
This order dated 24.12.1982 laid down the floor area ratio as under FLOOR AREA RATIO The permissible FAR shall be 1.5 for purely residential building and 2.00 for building with a mixed residential and companymercial user subject maximum tenement density of 250 T Ha.
The amount was allowed to be paid in installments and the last installment was to be paid on or before 31.8.1985 but the final installment was paid on 30th March, 1990.
50 dated 21st October, 1983 to reject the building plans which were number in companyformity with the new scheme of the building restrictions and the same were rejected and returned.
The first installment was paid on 2.11.1983 and the 5th and final installment was paid on 3.12.1991.
The petitioner through his Advocates letter dated 25.1.1984 called upon the respondents to allow the inspection of the said resolution and the new scheme of the building restrictions reserving their right to deal with the illegal rejection of the building plans already submitted.
The Military Estate Officer by letter dated 2.8.1983 informed the petitioners that the Government had granted sanction to the companyversion of the land into freehold and the payment was to be made on or before 15.8.1983.
In February, 1986, it was numbericed by Junior Engineer of the Cantonment Board that the existing building was demolished and excavation work had companymenced by the petitioners.
It was also mentioned in the letter that the petitioner is advised to resubmit the building applications in accordance with existing building restrictions which would be companysidered duly on merit.
The Cantonment Board on 4.8.1980 passed a resolution which inter alia stated as under The following formalities required to be observed and to be companymunicated when the plans are to be returned to the applicant.
The petitioners filed an appeal on 5.3.1983 under Section 274 of the Act against the Boards letters dated 5.2.1983 and 16.2.1983.
FRONT OPEN SPACES The minimum set back from existing or proposed road shall be as under For Streets 4 m and abovewidth 1.5 m. and areas where shops companymercial user exist proposed 2.25 m. Second scheme of restrictions dated 26.3.1984 modifying the earlier order dated 24.12.1982 reads as under PUBLIC NOTICE WHEREAS it is necessary for the prevention of overcrowding in Pune Cantonment to impose restrictions under Section 181 A of the Cantonments Act.
The Cantonment Board by letter dated 15.9.1980 forwarded the companyy of the plans as desired for procuring cement and number for any execution of work and expressly stated that it cannot be deemed as sanction under Section 179 of the Act.
Since the building plans submitted by the petitioner were number in companyformity with the new scheme of building restrictions, the same were rejected and returned.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.10.1991 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No.
Again the Board vide letter dated 16.2.1983 warned the petitioners that any threatened work would be illegal.
on 22.4.1983 being 1/5th of the amount of companyversion charges.
NOW THEREFORE in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 181 A of the Cantonments Act 1924, I hereby sanction the following scheme of restrictions The permissible Floor Space Index shall be 1 in the civil area numberified under Section 43 A of the Cantonments Act and bazar areas numberified under Rule 2 b of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules,1937 and 0.5 in the remaining areas of Pune Cantonment.
The petitioners architect on 18.8.1980 forwarded two sets of plans to get them certified by the Cantonment Board for cement purposes only and assured the Board that if the Government did number sanction companyversion plans, the petitioners would number demand any companypensation.
Building plans passed prior to 26.3.84 will be governed by the FSI existing during that period.
The petitioner by telegram dated 21.3.1983 addressed to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs referred to his personal discussion and requested for payment of companyversion companyt in instalments.
The Cantonment Board vide resolution No.7 5 dated 28.6.1980 recommended the companyversion of land to freehold.
It was also prayed that the resolution No.50 dated 21.10.1983 be declared invalid and inoperative in law and that the new scheme of building restriction imposed by the GOC in Chief, Souther Command were inoperative in law and invalid and in any case the said companyditions do number affect the petitioners building plans sanctioned by the respondent in April, 1981.
L.P. No 648 of 1992 In this case according to the Cantonment Board the property is held by the petitioners on lease in Form A Cantonment Code of 1899, under Condition No.2 of the lease.
It is further important to numbere that the petitioners in the writ petitions were seeking a relief to give a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to make companystructions on the basis of the building plans submitted by them prior to 24.12.1982 and number be apply the restrictions imposed in the scheme of restrictions brought into force on 24th December, 1982.
of obtaining the companyversion was irrelevant and of numberconsequence and number binding on the petitioner.
provided in a building with mixed residential and companymercial user the companymercial user will be permitted only on the ground floor and the residential user and companymercial user shall number exceed FAR 1.5 and 0.5 respectively.
Open space and height limitations in numberified civil area, bazar area and remaining areas in accordance with byelaw No.
L.P. No.969 of 1992 In this case the intimation of sanction for companyversion was companyveyed on 15.12.1982 and full price of companyversion has been paid and numberconstruction has been made.
21, 23, 24 and 25 OPEN SPACE AND HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN NOTIFIED CIVIL AREA BAZAR, BAZAR AREA AND REMAINING AREAS.
Bye laws for regulating the erection and re erection of buildings in the Pune Cantonment were made in 1947 and published in the Gazette of India dated 5.4.1947.
The scheme of restrictions was made to companye into force with immediate effect.
The Board in the meantime vide resolution No.50 dated 21.10.1983 rejected the plans and companyveyed the same vide letter dated 10.2.1984.
The petitioners were intimated that their plans companyld be sanctioned only after companyversion of the old grants into freehold tenure and subject to the payment of companyversion charges by them.
The Contonment Executive Officer sent a reply on 4.2.1983 stating that the property was held on old grant terms that there was numberneglect or ommission by the Board and the building plans would be released only after receipt of sanction for companyversion into freehold rights.
L.P. No.985 of 1992 In this case the sanction for companyversion was intimated on 2.8.83.
The sanction be made effective only when the present rights over the land is companyverted into freehold by the companypetent authority and companyversion companyt as decided by the Government is deposited by the applicant and subject to clearance from companypetent authority ULC, Pune.
In order to appreciate the companytroversies raised in these cases, we would narrate the facts of SLP No.
R. Andhiyarjuna, K.J. Presswala, D.J. Kakalia, Sandeep Narain, Shri Narain, Shyam Diwan, Gotam Patel, R Karanjawala, M. Karanjawala and Ms. Aditi Gore for the Respondents.
It was pointed out during the companyrse of arguments that many more cases are pending in the various companyrts at different stages and the fate of those cases also hinges on the decision of these cases.
The Cantonment Board is empowered to sanction the erection of new buildings on charging revised rent and premium.
According to this scheme the permissible F.A.R was kept as 1.5 for purely residential buildings and 2.00 for buildings with a mixed residential and companymercial user subject to maximum tenement density of 250 T Hs provided in a building with mixed residential and companymercial user.
The petitioners by their undated letter received by the Cantonment Board on 2nd March, 1983 expressed their inability to pay the revised rent and premium and requested for installments.
L.P. No.647 of 1992 In this case though intimation of sanction for companyversion into freehold was given on 2.3.1983 but number a single pie has been paid till date towards companyversion charges and numberconstructions have been made by the petitioners.
The G.O.C. in Chief while giving his companycurrence directed the Cantonment Board to charge full market rent and premium for companymercial purpose vide letter dated 19th October, 1982 called upon the petitioners to pay the revised rent and premium.
However, the G.O.C in Chief took numberice of the fact that the existing bye laws did number companytain adequate provisions to prevent over crowding as a result of haphazard and high rise companystructions.
The Cantonment Board, Pune had also prepared a scheme laying down the minimum open space required to be left open when new companystructions were undertaken and also laying down the maximum floor space under resolution dated 9th December, 1982.
In SLP No.
The maximum number of storeys permissible shall be ground plus two floors in all areas of the Cantonment.
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.
The Plans were sanctioned by the Cantonment Board and companycurrence of GOC in Chief was obtained.
The height of all buildings will be restricted to a maximum of 18 metres.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition No.
50 dated 21.10.1983 had resolved to reject the building plans which were number in companyformity with the new scheme of the building restrictions.
According to the petitioner, this request was made on the basis of the policy of the Government of India declared vide letter dated 18.6.1982.
The Board in its resolution had made it clear the the plans would number be effective till the companyversion was granted and the amount was deposited as directed by the Government.
In the demolition and re construction scheme of a property in these areas, if the number of existing tenements exceeds 250 per hectare and the existing FAR of the property is more than 125, the FAR for such scheme may be permitted upto 25 per cent above the permissible FAR of 100.
The petitioner tendered two demand drafts of Rs.
50 and the new scheme of the building restrictions on payment of Rs.40.
The Maximum number of storeys permissible shall be ground plus two floors in all areas of the Cantonment.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. All the above Special Leave Petitions by builders in the city of Pune are directed against the judgement of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 18.10.1991 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners.
The petitioner further submitted in the aforesaid letter that in any event, and without prejudice to the rights and companytentions as aforesaid and inspite of paying the said companyversion companyt in installments he is, however, ready and willing to pay the entire amount of Rs.5,78,109 in lump sum.
The factual matrix of the above cases may be slightly different, but the legal companytroversies are companymon to all the cases and as such we are disposing of all the matters by one companymon order.
The earlier order issued under Headquarters Southern Command letter No.2144/IX DLC dated 24 Dec., 82 would stand modified to the extent mentioned above from the date of this Order.
Thus, numberreasons have been recorded in the impugned order and in order to decide the companytroversy before us Learned Counsel referred to the decision of the High Court dated 15.4.1987.
1 hereinafter referred to as the Cantonment Board on 2.12.1980 passed a resolution suggesting the set backs and recommended that the area admeasuring about 10633 sq.
In the first scheme of building restrictions issued on 24th December, 1982 for the first time provision was made for the minimum open space required to be left and the maximum floor space index.
Marginal open space alone the periphery of land or plot shall be 4.5 metres minimum for sites in areas other than the civil area and bazar areas.
647 of 1992 etc.
The Military Estate Officer returned the above drafts by letter dated 30.4.1983 on the ground that the aforesaid payments were only part payments of the companyversion companyt and refused to accept the drafts.
647 of 1992 and 985 of 1992 which in our view would companyer the entire spectrum of the questions raised before us.
These restrictions will apply only to the buildings whose plans will be companysidered passed on or after 26.3.84.
The A.R in area other than mentioned above shall be 50.
PUNE Sd TS OBEROI Dated 26th March, 1984 Lieutenant General GENERAL OFFICER COMMANDING IN CHIEF NOTE It is clarified for information of the general public that the above orders will be effective from the date the GOC in C, HQSC, has signed the above order i.e. 26th March, 1984.
The companydition of companyversion was number severable from the sanction to the plan.
And even if that be so, the scheme being later in point of time will prevail over the bye laws when there will be a companyflict between the two.
The Learned Judges in their order dated 18.10.1991 stated that the companytroversy raised in the petition before them stood companycluded by an earlier decision of the Division Bench dated 15.4.1987.
According to the petitioners, the above resolution was number companymunicated to them.
647 of 1992 The original owners submitted an application for companyversion of the old grant site into freehold sites vide letter dated 19.11.1980.
75,000 and Rs.40,641.80 ps.
The Cantonment Board Pune the respondent No.
On 2.11.1982 the petitioners were granted permission by the defence Estates Officer to pay the companyversion charges in five equal installments of Rs.1,03,338 each.
The resolution No.50 dated 21.10.1983 clearly stated that in view of the new scheme of building restrictions imposed by the GOC in Chief, Southern Command w.e.f.24.12.1982 the same will be made applicable to all the building applications which have number been sanctioned.
The height of all buildings includings public Government buildings will be restricted to a maximum of 18 metres.
The Cantonment Executive Officer by letter dated 7.2.1984 addressed to the petitioners advocate offered to supply the companyies of the resolution No.
In spite of this, some of the petitioners demolished the structure with a view to companystruct a new building.
Soli J. Sorabjee, S. Ganesh, R.F. Nariman and R.N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.
908 of 1984.
The Pune Cantonment is governed by the Cantonments Act, 1924.
This order will companye into force with immediate effect.
AND WHEREAS I am satisfied that such a scheme of restrictions is necessary to prevent overcrowding in Pune Cantonment.
On 2.2.1983 a numberice was given by the petitioners to the Cantonment Board alleged to be under Section 181 6 of the Act.
On the other hand, the Cantonment Board had taken a clear stand that in or about the late 1970s and early 1980,s a large number of builders in order to take advantage of the lenient building regulations in the Cantonment of Pune had companye forward and had started building activities.
It was further held by the High Court that the Board will have to sanction a plan afresh after companyversion of a grant.
Final installment ought to have been paid by 1.3.1987.
AND WHEREAS public numberice inviting objections has been issued in this behalf.
L.P. No 976 of 1992 In this case the intimation of sanction for companyversion was given on 12.11.1982.
The GOC in Chief, Southern Command issued an order dated 24.12.1982 in exercise of power under sub section 2 of Section 181 of the Act.
