Hotel Royal Park Ltd. vs The Pondicherry Planning Authority, The Govt. of Pondicherry and M.O.H. Aslam

P.K. Misra, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the Order dated 8.1.2003

and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the application for planning permission dated 19.10.2001 filed by the petitioner herein for the

construction of a hotel complex and kalyana mandapam in the property bearing S. No. 99/1A/1A/3, Pondicherry.

The facts in brief in the present writ petition are as follows:-

The petitioner a limited company has purchased property from three vendors by registered sale deed dated 15.12.1994. After purchasing the

property, an application was filed before the first respondent for development of the land for the purpose of construction of hotel and kalyana

mandapam. After prolonged correspondence the first respondent by letter dated 8.1.2003 communicated the following Order to the petitioner:

With reference to the letters cited above, I am to state that your proposal and the documentary evidence have since been referred to the Law

Department and their opinion is reproduced below:-

As per the Record of Proceedings of the Supreme Court dated 14.2.2000 it is seen that the application for impleadment filed by M/s. Hotel Royal

Park Ltd in I.A. No. 374 of 2000 in Civil Appeal No. 4512-4513 will be heard at the time of hearing the appeals. The prayer in the application

seeks for impleadment of the applicant in the Civil Appeals and for deletion of item No. 5 of the D Schedule property. Therefore, when the very

prayer for impleadment will be taken up only at the time of hearing the appeals, the Pondicherry Planning Authority may have to wait the disposal

of the appeals before taking any action in the matter.

In the light of the above, your proposal will be processed only after disposal of the above appeals and until then nothing is pending with this

authority"".

Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent by letter dated 3.4.2003 informed the petitioner

that in view of the pendency of appeal before the Supreme Court of India, it is not possible to consider the petitioner''s application seeking

permission for construction. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the above writ petition.

In the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a letter had been written by the petitioner indicating that the

petitioner was prepared to construct the hotel and kalyana mandapam at its own risk and would ultimately abide by any decision. In the present

writ petition also, under ground ''D'', it has been stated as follows:-

The respondents have completely failed to appreciate the significance of the representation made by the petitioner on 12.11.2002 through their

counsel wherein it has been categorically stated that any construction put up by them will not affect the rights of the original litigants and that the

construction is being put up at our costs and consequences"".

In the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that any construction made by the petitioner would be at cost and

peril of the petitioner and in case, ultimately, it is found that the petitioner did not have any right over the disputed property, such construction

would be subject to the decision and no equity would be claimed by the petitioner.

Section 43 of the Pondicherry Town and Country Planning Rules, 1974 lays down as follows:

Application for permission for development or change in use of land shall be made in Form III with the particulars, documents and plans referred

in the said form so as to accompany the applications"".

Form III which is a statutory form, requires various particulars including copy of title deed. In the present case, there is no dispute that the

petitioner has furnished copy of the sale deed and also produced title deed of the vendors. The Planning Authority having thought that some dispute

is pending before the Supreme Court, refused to grant permission for construction at that stage. It is not necessary for the Planning Authority to go

deep into the question of title deeds. The Planning Authority has to satisfy prima facie regarding title and possession of a person who is seeking

permission to develop the land. For the aforesaid purpose, the very fact that the disputed property has been recorded in the name of three vendors

and subsequently it has been recorded in the name of the petitioner, prima facie satisfies the requirement relating to provisions. In the absence of

any Order of injunction prohibiting the construction by any competent court, it is not for the Planning Authority to anticipate the same and it is not a

ground for them to refuse the grant of permission for construction. In the present case, the impugned Order would indicate that merely because an

application had been filed by the petitioner in a matter pending before the Supreme Court in a suit relating to dissolution, the authority has observed

that it would not be in a position to consider the application for grant of permission for construction. Such Order cannot be sustained.

Keeping in view the undertaking indicated in the representation made by the petitioner and reflected in the Ground ''D'' as well as undertaking

made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of hearing in Court, the Planning Authority is directed to consider the matter in respect

of other aspects and it is not necessary for them to go into the question title deed. However, it is made clear that if any Order of injunction is

passed by any Court prohibiting the petitioner from putting up construction, such Order will be taken into consideration by the Planning Authority.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Order of the first respondent is hereby set aside and the first respondent is

directed to consider the petitioner''s application for grant of permission for construction afresh and dispose of the same within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Subject to aforesaid observation, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, connected WPMP is closed. No costs.