Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1980 Supreme(SC) 470

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK AND O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.
Chet Ram Vashist, Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 147 of 1974,
D/- 5-11-1980.
Advocates appeared
Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Mahinder Narain, Advocate with him); for Appellant; Mr. Lal Narain Sinha, Attorney General of India (M/s. B. P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and S. K. Bhattacharya, Advocates with him), ( for No. 1) and M/s. Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bahadur Saharya, Advocates (for No. 2), for Respondents.

Headnote:
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Section 313(3),(5), 313, 312, 337(1), 336, 337, 313 to 316 - Land - Developing Land as Residential Colony - Grant of Sanction - Appellants father, owned. a large parcel of land in village - Land was situated within municipal limits - Amin Chand decided on developing land as a residential colony named, after his father - He submitted a lay-out plan for sanction - Plan was sanctioned by Standing Committee of Delhi Municipal Corporation by Resolution passed - A revised lay-out plan was approved by Standing Committee by Resolution - Meanwhile, Amin Chand died, and appellant, his son, thought it desirable that lay-out plan should include provision for construction of a cinema - Appellant filed a writ petition in High Court of Delhi alleging that application had not been considered by Standing Committee, and as period prescribed by statute for doing so had expired revised lay-out plan must be treated as having been sanctioned - Whether contained in master plan or a zonal development plan prepared for Delhi or not - Whether private streets proposed in lay-out plan will adequately and sufficiently serve buildings raised on plots - Whether access provided by proposed private streets sufficiently and adequately serves purpose enacted in S. 312, and that is why lay-out plan must show particulars specified - Whether lay-out plan now proposed can be sanctioned – Held, Court think that limited view taken by High Court is not justified - It is open to owner of land, after obtaining sanction to original lay-out plan, to apply afresh for sanction to a revised lay-out plan - Circumstances may arise after original sanction was granted, requiring owner to incorporate changes in original lay-out plan - In that event, when an application is made for grant of sanction to a revised lay-out plan it is, as it were, an application for grant of a fresh sanction - There is a fresh lay-out plan for which sanction is applied - It is differently constituted from original lay-out plan - Such an application will fall under Section 313 - It is no bar to making such an application and entertaining it that owner has commenced to utilise land or otherwise dealt with it - Section 312 implies that land must be utilised in accordance with lay-out plan - If land has been utilised to any degree by appellant utilisation must conform to original sanctioned lay-out plan - No utilisation by appellant in manner subsequently proposed is permissible unless and until sanction is accorded to revised lay-out plan - If such sanction is refused, it is original sanction which will continue to operate, and lay-out plan to which such sanction was granted is one that matters - In circumstances, Court direct first respondent, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to refer application along with lay-out plan accompanying it to its Standing Committee and Standing Committee will dispose of application expeditiously in accordance with law - Appellant is not entitled to any further relief at this stage - In circumstances, parties will bear their costs - Order accordingly.

Judgment

PATHAK. J.:- Does the failure of the Standing Committee of the Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider under sub-sec. (3) of S. 313, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, an application for sanction to a lay-out plan within the period specified in the sub-section result in a "deemed" grant of the sanction? That is the principal question raised in this appeal by special leave which is directed against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court allowing a Letters Patent Appeal and dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The appellants father, Amin Chand, owned. a large parcel of land in village Chowkhandi near Tilak Nagar Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. The land was situated within the municipal limits of Delhi. Amin Chand decided on developing the land as a residential colony named, after his father, the "Gangaram Vatika Colony". He submitted a lay-out plan for sanction under S. 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The plan was sanctioned by the Standing Committee of the Delhi Municipal Corporation by Resolution No. 17 passed on 10th December, 1958. A revised lay-out plan was approved by the Standing Committee by Resolution No. 871 dated 12th November, 1964. Meanwhile, Amin Chand died, and the appellant, his son, thought it desirable that the lay-out plan should include provision for the construction of a cinema. Plots Nos. 33, 34 and 35 approved as separate units for the construction of residential houses in the lay-out plan were selected as an amalgamated unit for the cinema. An application dated 20th April, 1967, accompanied by a copy of the sanctioned lay-out plan indicating the proposed changes, was filed by the appellant and he prayed for "an early sanction in terms of the provisions of S. 313" of the Act. The Town Planner of the Corporation informed him by letter dated 14th June, 1967 that his application did not fall within the purview of S. 313 and that, moreover, the Master Plan did not envisage a cinema within a residential area, and therefore the request could not be considered. Some correspondence followed between the appellant and the Corporation and concluded with a letter of 29th September, 1969 by the Corporation informing the appellant that his proposal could not be accepted because it would contravene the Master Plan of Delhi.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi alleging that the application had not been considered by the Standing Committee, and as the period prescribed by the statute for doing so had expired the revised lay-out plan must be treated as having been sanctioned. Accordingly, he prayed that the respondents be restRamed from interfering with his right to raise the constructions including the cinema building in accordance with the revised lay-out plan. A learned single Judge of the High Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the Corporation to treat the revised lay-out plan as having been approved, but observed that the appellant would not be entitled to construct a cinema on the land unless due compliance had been effected with other provisions of the law and that it was open to the Standing Committee under sub-section (5) of S. 313 to prohibit the construction of the cinema. The Corporation preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, and a Division Bench of the High court by its judgment and order dated 16th October, 1973 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned single Judge and dismissed the writ petition.

4. Section 313 of the Corporation Act consists of the following provisions :

"313. (1) Before utilising, selling or otherwise dealing with any land under Section 312, the owner thereof shall send to the Commissioner a written application with a lay-out plan of the land showing the following particulars, namely :-

(a) the plots into which the land is proposed to be divided for the erection of buildings thereon and the purpose or purposes for which such buildings are to be used;

(b) the reservation or allo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document