The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, regarding the deemed sanction of building plans and the relevance of ASI permissions, circulars, and bye-laws.

1. The petitioner corporation has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 13.02.2012 (hereafter the ‘impugned order’) passed by the District Judge, Delhi whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner corporation against an order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (hereafter the ‘Tribunal’) was dismissed. The Tribunal, by the order dated 10.10.2011, held that the building plans submitted by the respondent in respect of his property were deemed to have been sanctioned by the petitioner corporation in favour of the respondent with effect from 19.10.2010 as the petitioner corporation had failed to decide the application of the respondent within a period of 60 days as mandated by Section 337 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘the Act’).

2. The petitioner corporation submits that the Tribunal and the District Judge, erred in holding that the plans submitted by the respondent for constructing his property bearing No. 4752, 4758 at 23, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, were deemed to be sanctioned. According to the petitioner corporation, the height of the building as per the plans – although in conformity with the unified building bye-laws – is higher than as permitted by Archeological Survey of India (ASI). And, the respondent has also not provided for stilt parking. The petitioner corporation submits that as the plans submitted by the respondent were contrary to law, the provisions of Section 337 of the Act were inapplicable and the Tribunal and the District Judge, erred in not considering the same.

3. The limited controversy to be addressed is whether the District Judge erred in holding that the plans submitted by the respondent were deemed to be sanctioned by virtue of Section 337(1) of the Act and, consequently, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner corporation.

4. The brief facts relevant to examine the controversy in the present petition are under:-

4.1 The respondent is the owner of the property bearing No. 4752, 4758 at 23, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereafter the ‘said property’). The respondent desired to reconstruct the said property for residential use after demolishing the same and, therefore, on 28.07.2010, the respondent served a notice of his intention to build in terms with Section 333 of the Act, read with the Building Bye-laws for the Union Territory of Delhi, 1983 under the jurisdiction of Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereafter the ‘Building Bye-Laws’). The said notice (hereafter also referred to as an ‘application’) for sanction of the building plan was received by the Building Department, City Zone of the petitioner corporation. In response to the application, the petitioner corporation issued an Invalid Notice (hereafter referred to as ‘IN’) dated 10.08.2010 pointing out the following alleged infirmities in the application:-

“1. Complete chain of ownership document;

2. Part Zonal Layout Plan - 3 copies;

3. Latest House Tax Receipt;

4. Three sets of drawing - Blue prints;

5. One set of drawing cloth mounted;

6. Affidavit regarding SABR;

7. The case will be forwarded to ALO City, Town Planning & the outcome intimated.”

4.2 On 20.08.2010, the respondent, by its letter dated 12.08.2010, replied to all the queries raised by the petitioner corporation in its IN.

4.3 Thereafter, on 01.11.2010, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal claiming that plans submitted by the respondent were deemed to be sanctioned under Section 337(1) of the Act as the petitioner corporation had failed to communicate any rejection or sanction of the building plan within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the information on the queries demanded by the corporation and praying that the said plans be released.

4.4 By an order dated 10.10.2011, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and held that the building plans submitted by the respondent were deemed to be sanctioned in favour of the respondent with effect from 19.10.2010 as it was found that there was a lapse on pa