JUDGMENT

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

This writ appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1162/2023, by which appellant was directed to consider the case of respondent under Rule 23(3) of Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012 (in short' Rules, 2012") for extension of building permission.

Challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge, it is submitted by counsel for appellant that building permission was granted to respondent for raising construction. However, the construction did not begin within a period of three years, therefore, the life of building permission was extended by one year. Even in the extended period, respondent could not begin the construction, therefore, it was further extended by a period of one year. The maximum life of the building permission is five years. Life of the building permission came to an end on 09.06.2020. Thereafter, another application for further extension of the life of building permission was filed on 06.08.2021. Said application was rejected, which was challenged by respondent by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which was registered as Writ Petition No. 12902/2021. Said writ petition was decided by learned Single Judge by order dated 27.07.2022 and by setting aside the order dated 06.08.2021, and appellant was directed to decide the application afresh under Rule 23(3) of Rules, 2012. Appellant was also directed to consider the effect of various restrain orders issued in the light of COVID-19 pandemic. It is submitted that since the project had not begun, therefore, the provisions of Rule 23(3) of Rules, 2012 were not applicable, and accordingly, application was rejected. However, said order has been set aside by learned Single Judge.

It was fairly conceded by counsel for appellant that the order dated 27.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12902/2021 was never challenged by appellant. It is further submitted by counsel for appellant that appellant is ready to reconsider the application of respondent under Section 300 of the Municipal Corporation Act.

Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that it is incorrect to say that the construction had not begun during the subsistence of the building permission. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the life of the building permission had expired during the various restrictions imposed by the Union of India on account of COVID-19 pandemic. Even a nationwide lockdown was also imposed with effect from 24.03.2020. Under these circumstances, even assuming that the construction had not begun, still appellant cannot insist the respondent to indulge in any activity which otherwise would have been contrary to the law of the land. It is submitted that in the light of nationvide lockdown imposed by the Union of India, it was impossible for the respondent to initiate any building construction, otherwise he would have been held liable for violating the orders passed by Union of India as well as the restrain orders issued by concerned SDMs. Thus, even if it is presumed that respondent had not resumed construction, then it is clear that he could have resumed construction on any date prior to the expiry of life of building permission, but that was not possible for the respondent to do in the light of various restraining orders issued by the authorities.

Heard learned counsel for parties.

It is a case where the life of building permission had expired on 09.06.2020. Admittedly, the restrain orders were in force and anybody found indulged in violating the restrain orders was liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the IPC, including under Section 188 of IPC. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge, while deciding Writ Petition No. 12902/2021, had taken the aforesaid aspect into consideration, and only thereafte