Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Sangeet Lodha, J.
State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur - Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Board, Balotra & Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 309 of 2011
Decided On : 20-7-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shridhar Mehta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. O.P. Joshi, Advocate.
Headnote:
Seeking extension of time for raising construction - Seeking permission for sanction of residential building plans - Relevant facts are that petitioner, a nationalised bank was allotted 4197 sq. ft. land for residential building and accordingly, a perpetual lease was executed between petitioner and respondent-Municipal Board - After a lapse of a few years, petitioner made an application to Municipal Board, seeking permission for sanction of residential building plans - Plans submitted by petitioner were duly sanctioned by Municipal Board and permission to raise construction was issued - Operative period of sanction was petitioner could not start construction within time frame and therefore, an application was filed seeking extension of time and respondent-Municipal Board granted extension for completion of construction, where under petitioner was required to complete construction within period - Petitioner could not start construction even within time period extended as aforesaid and made yet another application on 9.8.10 seeking permission for raising construction - Petitioner was served with a notice, whereby petitioner was informed that public representatives of Ward have raised objection against construction permission being granted and therefore, it may file reply to objections before Building Committee - Thereafter, straight away, Executive Officer, Municipal Board issued an order granting conditional sanction as aforesaid - After issuing sanction as aforesaid, respondent-Municipal Board issued a notice inviting tender for inter alia construction of 30 wide road on land of petitioner - Hence, this petition – Held , Petitioner did not raise construction pursuant to sanction granted by Municipal Board within extended period -Thereafter, plans were again submitted by petitioner for sanction vide application - A perusal of application does not reveal that petitioner made an application seeking extension of time for raising construction, rather, it was an application seeking sanction of plan submitted as aforesaid - In this regard, affidavit attached to application placed on record as Annexure is self explanatory - Be that as it may, if any objection was raised by public representatives or residents, Municipal Board was under an obligation to extend an opportunity of hearing to petitioner - Apparently, petitioner was given only a days time to file reply to objections - Stand of petitioner that communication was served upon Branch Manager of Bank is also not controverted by respondent-Municipal Board - In any case, while granting permission for raising construction, Municipal Board could not have unilaterally imposed condition upon petitioner to provide 30 wide public way through its land - Municipal Board could not have proceeded to impose condition with presumption that there was an existing way passing through land allotted to petitioner - That apart, if land forming part of public way was transferred by Municipal Board in favour of petitioner, nothing prevented it from taking appropriate proceedings for cancellation of lease to that extent in accordance with law - Obviously, matter with regard to justification of imposition of condition as aforesaid, has to be dealt with by Municipal Board in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to petitioner - Thus, order impugned passed by Municipal Board in perfunctory manner in violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in eyes of law - Writ petition allowed
Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J.
This petition is directed against order dated 22.10.10 issued by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Balotra, whereby while granting sanction for raising construction of residential building, a condition has been imposed that 30' wide way shall be kept open by the petitioner in the public interest.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner, a nationalised bank was allotted 4197 sq. ft. land for residential building and accordingly, a perpetual lease was executed between the petitioner and the respondent-Municipal Board on 28.3.97. After a lapse of a few years, the petitioner made an application to the Municipal Board, seeking permission for sanction of residential building plans. The plans submitted by the petitioner were duly sanctioned by the Municipal Board and the permission to raise construction was issued on 26.11.02. The operative period of the sanction was from 1.12.02 to 30.11.03. The petitioner could not start the construction within the time frame and therefore, an application was filed seeking extension of time and the respondent-Municipal Board granted the extension for completion of the construction, where under the petitioner was required to complete the construction within the period from 8.7.05 to 7.7.06. The petitioner could not start the construction even within the time period extended as aforesaid and made yet another application on 9.8.10 seeking permission for raising construction. The petitioner was served with a notice dated 21.9.10, whereby the petitioner was informed that the public representatives of Ward No.16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 have raised objection against the construction permission being granted and therefore, it may file reply to objections before the Building Committee on 22.9.10. Thereafter, straight away, the Executive Officer, Municipal Board issued an order dated 21.10.10 granting conditional sanction as aforesaid. After issuing the sanction as aforesaid, the respondent-Municipal Board issued a notice inviting tender for inter alia construction of 30' wide road on the land of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-Municipal Board, taking the stand that a public way passes through petitioner's land, which is adjacent to the main road and therefore, if the construction permission is granted to the petitioner, the existing way shall stand closed. It is submitted that in the public interest, the condition imposed is just and proper. It is submitted that the NIT dated 10.12.10 stands cancelled and at present, no construction of the road is proposed to be raised by the Municipal Board.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that no reason has been assigned by the Municipal Board for revoking the permission earlier granted to the petitioner under the applicable provisions of law. Learned counsel submitted that no condition for providing the public way passing through the petitioner's land could have been imposed by the Municipal Board without acquiring the land in accordance with law. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner's land is already surrounded by roads on four sides and therefore, mere statement of the respondent-Municipal Board that the said decision was taken in the public interest would not make the action sought to be taken legal. Learned counsel submitted that before imposing the condition, no opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner. It is submitted that the notice was issued on 21.9.10 and on the very next day on 22.9.10, the Branch Manager of the petitioner-bank was asked to appear before the Building Committee. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the said notice was served upon the petitioner on 23.9.10 i.e. a day after the scheduled date. Learned counsel submitted that the condition imposed by the Municipal Board without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is ex facie violative of principle of natural
