- (1.) Though the appeals were admitted by Hon. R. N. Raysince retired) vide order dated 10-12-97 no substantial questions of law were formulated. However, Sri A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant has pressed the two appeals on following substantial questions of law formulated by him in the of memos appeal :-"1. Whether the appellant was only authorized to sanction the site plan for the construction of 1.5 F.A.R. The respondents admitted a site plan for construction of multistoried building of 3.5 F.A.R., site plan of which can only be passed after the Board of the appellant in its meeting approves it and sends its recommendation to the State Government and the State Government grants its permission, only then site plan of 3.5 F.A.R. of multistoried can be passed. No request was made nor any application was given by the plaintiff respondent that his case be placed before the Board of the appellant but view to the contrary taken by the appellate Court is wholly illegal and erroneous?2. Whether as per the rules and regulations of the appellant the respondents are liable to pay development charges, internal developments charges and betterment charges to the appellant as the land in dispute is situated within the regulated area and as such before permitting construction on a free hold land development charges etc. are charged as per the rules and regulations of the appellant but view to the contrary taken by the appellate Court is wholly illegal and erroneous?"
(2.) In Second Appeal No. 1139 of 1997 one more question raised is that the trial Court decreed the suit for allotment of certain lands to the plaintiffs-respondents on payment of consideration as directed by the Courts below. The decree is in the nature of specific performance of the contract. There was no agreement. Hence the said decree is without jurisdiction.
(3.) Since in both the appeals the questions raised are identical it would be convenient to decide both the appeals by a common judgment.;