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

2023 Supreme(Online)(HP) 15437

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sureshwar Thakur, J
Bishnu Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
C. W. P. No. 3064 of 2019



Deemed permission does not grant the right to contravene existing building regulations and must comply with applicable laws.

Headnote:(A) Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 - Section 31 - Deemed approval of site plan for construction - Petitioner submitted plan for a four-storey building; yet his request for approval was neither granted nor denied within the mandated time - Held, deemed approval granted due to inaction of Corporation, but construction still subject to compliance with applicable laws and regulations. (Paras 1, 8, 23)

(B) Obligations of Public Authorities - Authorities must act within statutory timelines and cannot ignore the law; delays highlight negligence and may indicate underlying issues - Inquiry directed into the inaction of officials responsible for approval process. (Paras 12, 22)

(C) Violation of Regulations - Deemed permissions do not grant unfettered rights; construction must adhere to stipulated regulations, regardless of implied permissions. (Paras 10, 23)

Table of Content
1. petition for building plan approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioner asserts deviation is permissible. (Para 4 , 5)
3. deemed sanction recognized under statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. inquiry into negligence of public officers. (Para 12 , 18 , 21 , 22)
5. condition on deemed approval includes adherence to regulations. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)

1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief: -
"That the respondents may very kindly be directed to act as per provisions of S.31(5) of the Act and immediately and forthwith issue letter granting approval / sanction of site plan of 4 - storey building as submitted as per deemed approval clause in favour of the petitioner."

2. It is not in dispute that on 07.08.2018 the petitioner submitted a site plan of four - storeyed building of land measuring 00-02-47 hect. In Khata No. 263, Khatauni No.425, Khasra No.2009/1928, situated in Up Mohal Mecleodganj, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. Thereafter, when the Corporation did not respond, the petitioner filed an application under diary No. 11278 dated 06.03.2019 thereby invoking the provisions of S.31(5) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (for short ''Act'') requesting the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Dharamshala, to return the file of the petitioner granting permission as envisaged under the provisions. However, despite this, the respondent - Corporation again did not respond constraining the petitioner to serve a legal notice dated 28.03.2019 upon the Corporation and yet when nothing was done, the petitioner ultimately filed the instant petition.

3. The respondent - Corporation contested the petition by filing the reply wherein all these facts have not been denied. However, it was stated that the case file was thoroughly examined in the Office of the Corporation and the request of the petitioner for approval of commercial building of guest house was rejected on the ground that the condition of minimum plot area of 250 square meters required as per regulations of Development Plan Dharamshala, regulations at Sr. No.14.2.2(4) under tourism unit was not fulfilled. It is averred that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 247 square meters area only in land bearing Khasra No. 2009/1928 in Mohal Mecleodganj, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra, as against the requirement of 250 square meters.

4. It is further averred that the plan submitted by the petitioner was re - examined after the petitioner again applied for approval after attending the observations made on 19.02.2020 and the same was again rejected on the ground that the condition of minimum area for the construction of guest house was not fulfilled by the petitioner.

5. The petitioner has filed rejoinder wherein it has been averred that even if the plot area of the petitioner is 247 square meters as against the requirement of 250 square meters, even then there is provisions of deviation upto 10% of the plot area and thus deviation is permissible being only three square meters. Apart from the above, it has been emphatically stated that the objections as raised by the respondents are not tenable in law in view of the provisions contained as the plan submitted is deemed to be sanctioned as per S.31(5) of the Act.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to reproduce S.31 (1) and (5) of the Act which read as under: -
"31(1) On receipt of an application under S.30** or 30 - A the Director may, subject to the provisions of this Act by order in writing -
(a) grant the permission unconditionally;
(b) grant the permission, subject to such conditions as may be deemed necessary under the circumstances; and
(c) refuse the permission.
(5) If the Director does not communicate his decision whether to grant or refuse permission to the applicant within **two months from the date of receipt of his appl






























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