- (1.) In this writ petition, there are two respondents is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and the second respondent is the Cantonment Board, Meerut Cantt., Meerut. The second respondent is represented by Sri Mohammad Isa Khan, Advocate, who has filed a counter affidavit to the main writ petition as well as the supplementary counter affidavits. The first respondent was represented by the Asstt Solicitor General of India, although no one from that side has appeared before us today although the case has been taken up in the revised list. By order dated 10.11.2005, the respondent No. 1 was required to file an affidavit similar to the affidavits sought from the Meerut Cantonment Board. The order dated 10.11.2005 is quoted below for ready reference. "As prayed by learned counsel for the respondents list on 28.11.2005 to enable respondent-board to file an affidavit indicating whether apart from the sale consideration being demanded, there is any other objections to execution of the sale deed (freehold deed) in favour of the petitioner. A similar affidavit may be filed by respondent No. 1 represented by Sri K.C. Sinha. No further opportunity will be allowed for this purpose, as much delay has already taken place and petitioner has deposited substantial amount of money with the respondents. Along with the supplementary affidavit respondent No. 2 will also submit a draft deed of transfer (freehold) so that after hearing both the parties draft of the transfer deed may be settled by the Court in order to avoid future disputes and delay."
(2.) Thereafter, another order dated 6.12.2005 was passed in this petition, which is again quoted below: "Two questions survive in this writ petition. Firstly whether the property is located in Abu Lane or in Ravindra Puri. The location of the property in question in either of these two localities will determine the circle rate to be applied for charging value of the property from the petitioner. Because the property has been described in some place and some documents as lying in Abu Lane while in other documents in which even respondent is also a party as lying in Ravaindra Puri. Therefore, it appears desirable to get the situation reviewed by the respondent No. 2 and to file another supplementary affidavit along with relevant documents even copies of G.L.R. (General Land Register) and such other documents and if necessary to get the survey and inspection report also showing in which locality the property in dispute is situate. Secondly, the supplementary affidavit will also justify the right of preemption incorporated in the last part of the draft deed filed with the supplementary affidavit by the respondents. Because once the lease hold rights are being converted in free hold rights then it passes absolute rights and their does not appear to be any justification for the respondents to have first right of purchase over and above any other purchaser. List this petition on 9.1.2006."
(3.) Thereafter, two further orders are then passed in this case are relevant which are dated 11.7.2006 and 27.7.2006, they are also being quoted below: "Both sides are granted two weeks' time to file a supplementary affidavit including the documents, if possible to show whether prior to today any free hold /sale deed had been executed either by respondent-Cantonment Board or by any other Cantonment Board of any land in any Canntt. area in which the condition of preemption as mentioned in the proposed free hold/sale deed, finds place. List on 27.7.2006." "Sri Mohd. Isa Khan appearing for the respondents, has stated today that he has not been able to obtain instructions and to file the documents required by the order of this Court dated 11.7.2006. As a last opportunity time is granted till the next listing of this case to enable him to file the supplementary affidavit. Because the facts sought by the order of this Court dated 11.7.2006 are likely to be in the special knowledge of the respondents, therefore, if the documents are not filed along with the supplementary affidavit, this Court may be persuaded to draw an adverse inference to the effect that the preemption clause has been inserted only in the present proposed sale deed (free hold deed) and that no such clause was inserted in other such similar documents prior to or subsequent to the present proposed sale deed (free hold deed). If such inference is drawn, it may lead to the further inference that the respondents has deliberately and malafidely inserted such a condition as a vindictive action against the petitioner on account of the petitioner having filed the present writ petition. List the case peremptorily in the next cause list." ;