SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Pat) 1244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
PURNENDU SINGH, J.
Shyam Chandra Sharma, Son of Late Ramnaresh Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Patna - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15963 of 2023
Decided On : 01-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, GA-3.
For the PMC :Mr. Indu Bhushan Singh, Advocate.

The court affirmed that denial of building permit based on erroneous document requirements violates the fundamental rights to shelter and livelihood under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 - Bihar Building Bye-Laws, 2014 - Writ petition filed seeking direction for sanction of building plan, rejected on grounds relating to submission of requisite documents for land ownership - Petitioner's continuous possession of land established, does not impact entitlement - Right to Shelter and Right to Trade emphasized as fundamental rights. (Paras 2, 4, 18, 57)

(B) Administrative Authority’s Duty - Regulatory bodies must adhere to procedural norms; rejection of building permit founded on insufficient grounds and erroneous interpretation of required documents is unacceptable. (Paras 26, 59)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought sanction for constructing a residential-cum-commercial building on purchasing land, which was denied by Municipal Corporation due to unfulfilled documentation. Despite ongoing disputes regarding un-surveyed lands, evidence showed construction activity permitted in the vicinity, contradicting the petitioner's rejection.

Findings of Court:
Court finds the Municipal Corporation's rejection of the building plan for non-submission of land possession documents was not in line with the law, effectively quashing the rejection.

Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner's rights prevailed despite the claim of un-surveyed land, and if administrative procedural adherence was correctly applied.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that rights conferred under valid transactions cannot be dismissed on erroneous interpretations of law or non-existent prohibitions, emphasizing the necessity for regulatory compliance for claim decisions.

Result: Writ petition allowed, Municipal Corporation ordered to process the building plan application expeditiously.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's rights and application overview. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. municipal corporation's grounds for application rejection. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. court's direction for clarification of land status. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. legal precedent relating to un-surveyed land. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. legal frameworks governing land registration and rights. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
6. building application requirements under the law. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
7. legal considerations regarding land ownership and mutation. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. court's stance on impossibility of compliance with unlawful directives. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. judiciary's jurisdiction in cases with alternative remedies. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
10. court's ruling on granting building plan based on legal principle. (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
11. purpose and requirements for building plan applications. (Para 56 , 57 , 58)
12. court's decision to quash previous rejection. (Para 59)
13. final resolution and directions from the court. (Para 60 , 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT :

PURNENDU SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Subhash Prasad Singh, learned GA-3 for the State and Mr. Indu Bhushan Singh, learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation.

2. The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs in Para-1 of the writ petition:

(i) To issue order / orders or writ / writs or direction / directions preferably a writ of mandamus upon the respondent no.4, Municipal Commissioner, Chapra Municipal Corporation directing him to forthwith sanction the Building Plan (Map) for construction of a residential-cum-commercial building on his piece of land having an area of 5586 sq. feet bearing holding no. 716, under Circle no. 16 and Ward No. 22 as in absence of the same, the petitioner is not able to construct his residential-cum- commercial building and thereby is not only being deprived of his inalienable and inviolable right of "Right to Shelter" guaranteed under Article 21 but is also being deprived of his fundamental right of right to carry occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India;

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/writs or order/orders or direction/directions, preferably a writ of certiorari quashing and setting aside the decision of the respondent no. 9, Municipal Commissioner, Chapra as contained in letter no. 2823 dated 14/9/2023 by which on an application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction of Building Plan (Map) for a piece of land having an area of 5800 sq. feet bearing holding no. 716 under Circle no. 16 and Ward No. 22 has been rejected on the non est ground that the respondent no. 10, Junior Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Chapra did not find the rent receipt, land possession certificate and other documents pertaining to the said land to be in consonance with the check list;

(iii) To issue further order/orders or writ/writs or direction/directions directing the respondent authorities to grant him further relief as the petitioner may be entitled to in the attending fact and circumstances of the case to see the ends of Justice.

ARGUMENT

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is coming into continuous possession of land measuring total area of 5800 sq. feet (12.823 dec.) falling under Chapra Municipal Corporation bearing holding no. 716, situated in ward no.2, under circle no.16 in the district of Saran. The aforesaid piece of the land was purchased by the petitioner and his wife, namely Bibha Sharma, by two registered sale-deeds. By the first registered sale-deed dated 22.06.2006, the petitioner purchased a part of the aforesaid piece of land measuring an area of 200 sq. feet from one Smt. Pratibha Verma. Similarly, the remaining area of the aforesaid piece of land,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top