Back
1976 Supreme(Del) 200
High Court Of Delhi
R.P.KAPUR - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
Civil 696 of 1976
Decided On : 12/24/1976
K.DAYAL, S.L.Bhatia
The sanction of a building plan cannot be revoked or ignored by the subsequent imposition of additional conditions. The absence of a formal communication of the sanction to the applicant does not affect its validity. The requirement of notice under Section 337 (4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is directory and its absence would not vitiate the sanction.
Headnote:
BUILDING REGULATIONS - SANCTION OF PLANS - DEEMED SANCTION - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - COMMUNICATION OF SANCTION - CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT SANCTION - REGULARISATION - COMPOUNDING FEE - DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1957 - SECTIONS 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the purported rejection of building plans submitted to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and an order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the orders of rejection. Petitioner contended that the plans had been duly sanctioned and in the alternative that the same be deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Finding of the Court:
1. The plan for plot No. 1 was sanctioned subject to certain conditions being satisfied, including the submission of an indemnity bond and compliance with the conditions of the approved layout plan. The condition regarding the indemnity bond was satisfied, but there was a dispute as to whether the conditions of the approved layout plan were satisfied. The plan was again considered and sanctioned subject to the issue of a no-objection certificate from the Chief Engineer (Water) regarding the chlorination plant. This condition was also satisfied. The subsequent resolutions of the Building Plan Committee imposing additional conditions did not affect the validity of the sanction already granted. 2. The plan for plot No. 2 was never sanctioned by the Building Plan Committee. The Executive Engineer (B) had sanctioned the plan subject to certain conditions, but this sanction was not communicated to the petitioner. The plan was subsequently rejected by the Building Plan Committee. 3. The plan for plot No. 2 would have been deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 337 (1) of the Act since no intimation of rejection was given within sixty days of the submission of the plan. However, the notice issued under Section 335 (1) and (2) of the Act, requiring the petitioner to comply with certain conditions, was not a valid notice under Section 335. Therefore, the plan could not be deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 337 (1).
Issues: 1. Whether the plans for the two plots in question had been sanctioned by the Corporation or not. 2. Whether any of the two plans could be deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sanction of the plan for plot No. 1 was valid and could not be revoked or ignored by the subsequent resolutions of the Building Plan Committee imposing additional conditions. The absence of a formal communication of the sanction to the petitioner did not affect its validity. The requirement of notice under Section 337 (4) of the Act is directory and its absence would not vitiate the sanction. 2. The plan for plot No. 2 was never sanctioned by the Building Plan Committee. The notice issued under Section 335 (1) and (2) of the Act was not a valid notice and, therefore, the plan could not be deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 337 (1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed. The rejections of the plans for building to be put up on plot Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellate order upholding the rejections were quashed. Both the plans would be treated as duly sanctioned and dealt with accordingly. Any existing construction which is in accordance with the plans would not be treated as an unauthorised construction. The Corporation would, however, be at liberty to treat any construction that may be inconsistent with the plans in accordance with law keeping in view, however, the need to compound such unauthorised construction should such an unauthorised construction be not inconsistent with public interest.
( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner challenges the purported rejection of the building plans submitted by the petitioner to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and an order of the appellate authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the orders of rejection and prays for a declaration that the plans had been duly sanctioned and in the alternative that the same be deemed to have been sanctioned.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is the owner of plots No. 1 and 2 in Kaushalya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, a colony which belongs to the petitioner s family and their relatives. The petitioner submitted house building plans for plots No. 1 and 2, referred to above, to the Corporation for sanction. The plans were allegedly sanctioned subject to certain conditions being fulfilled. According to the petitioner the conditions had been satisfied and the plans were, therefore, duly sanctioned pursuant to which the petitioner commenced construction. The petitioner contends that notwithstanding the aforesaid sanction the construction put up by the petitioner is being treated as unauthorised and it is made out as if the plans submitted by the petitioner had never been sanctioned and the petitioner had put up construction without the requisite sanction. In the alternative, the petitioner contends that under Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short, the Act) a house building plan is deemed to have been sanctioned if the refusal is not communicated within sixty days of the submission of the plan and inasmuch as purported rejections were communicated to the petitioner long after the expiry of the said statutory period the plans would be deemed to have been duly sanctioned. The petitioner further contends that the so-called unauthorised construction had been duly condoned because the Corporation had compounded the breach which had the effect of sanctioning the necessary construction.
( 3 ) THE petition is opposed and it is contended on behalf of the Corporation that the building plan in respect of plot No. 1 was considered by the Building Plan Committee on January 10, 1973 and it was decided that the plan may be sanctioned provided the conditions of approved lay out plan were satisfied and an indemnity bond specifying the nomenclature and use of the plot with respect to the approved lay out plan was submitted. It is further urged that the petitioner was not entitled to carry out any construction work unless the aforesaid condition had been satisfied and until the sanction had been communicated to the petitioner. It is then urged that a notice under Section 335 (1) and (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on January 30, 1973 requiring him to satisfy the conditions subject to which the sanction was made. So far as the building plan regarding plot No. 2 is concerned it is contended that the same was submitted by the petitioner on January 12, 1973. A notice under Section 335 (1) and (2) of the Act was issued to the petitioner on February 8, 1973 requiring the petitioner to comply with the conditions of approved lay out plan and to submit an indemnity bond regarding nomenclature and use of the plot which condition the petitioner had not until then satisfied. It is further alleged that in both the cases notices were issued to the petitioner within 60 days of the submission of the plan and the plans could not, therefore, be sanctioned unless the requirements had been satisfied. It is further alleged that, the petitioner having started construction without any authorisation from the Corporation, the construction was unauthorised and had to be dealt with accordingly. The allegation that the breach was compounded was denied and it was submitted that on May 8, 1973 the Building Plan Committee decided that the plans be considered for sanction provided necessary corrections were effected at site as per demarcation plan, unauthorised construction is removed or got regula
