Whether building plan deemed to have been sanctioned must also satisfy the conditions laid down in the building bye-laws?

 The statute provides as to how and in what manner an application for grant of sanction of building plan should be dealt with. Section 275(3) of the Act, however, raises a legal fiction specifying the period of sixty days within which an application for grant of sanction of building plan should be considered by the appropriate authorities of the Corporation. The legislature, therefore, considered the said period of sixty days to be reasonable one during which the application for grant of sanction for a building plan should be attended to and appropriate order thereupon should be passed. However, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that when queries are raised or defects are pointed out in the building plan, the owner of the land must reply thereto and/or remove the defects pointed out.

19. A building plan deemed to have been sanctioned must also satisfy the conditions laid down in the building bye-laws.

Although a deeming provision has been provided in Sub-section (1) of Section 247 of the 1994 Act, the same will have restricted operation. In terms of the said provision, the period of sixty days cannot be counted from the date of the original application, when the building plans had been returned to the applicant for necessary clarification and/or compliance with the objections raised therein. If no sanction can be granted, when the building plan is not in conformity with the building bye-laws or has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the laws, in our opinion, the restriction would not apply despite the deeming provision.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 6192-6197 of 2008 

Decided On: 22.10.2008

 Rikhabsao Nathusao Jain  Vs. Corpn. of the City of Nagpur and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: 2009(2) MHLJ (SC) 601,MANU/SC/8177/2008

Print Page

Whether plaintiff can claim that he has deemed permission for construction if he intends to carry out construction in the flood line?

 However, so far as the present matter is concerned, it has to be held that the construction of theatre by Respondent No. 3 in CTS No. 417 is within the prohibited area. He had no authority to construct such theatre. He has faulted the provisions of the M.R.T.P.Act and the M.M.Act. There was no valid permission for construction of the theatre. No permission could have been granted for construction of the theatre by the Municipal Council, Rahuri. Furthermore, even taking into consideration the provisions of section 5(b) of the Cinema Regulation Act, no licence can be issued for having a cinema theatre in that building, because it is not safe place to have cinema theatre. In such circumstance, the licence has to be revoked. So also, the building has to be demolished.{Para 67}

68. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has argued that this floodline is only imaginary line. No proper survey was made before drawing the floodline. There were no floods since 1947 in the area, where the floodline is provided for; and in such circumstances, merely on technicalities, the reliefs sought in the writ petition should not be allowed. However, we do not agree with this argument. It is amply brought on record that the concerned authorities had taken the survey, especially by the Engineers of the Irrigation Department. The Government also considered the matter on every aspect; and though at one stage, the Government was thinking of removing the floodlines, after reconsideration of the entire matter, decided to retain the floodlines and then the Notification of 1981 was issued. It is a precautionary measure taken by the Government for the safety of the residents of Rahuri town. There were no floods in the past, that does not mean that the precautionary measures be thrown to winds. The construction is unauthorised construction and it has to be treated like that.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(AURANGABAD BENCH)

V.K. BARDE AND D.S. ZOTING, JJ.

Vithal Ramchandra Devkhar & Anr. Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Writ Petition No. 187 of 1989

18th January, 2001

Citation: 2001(3) ALL MR 872

Print Page