Rajinder Garg vs Municipal Committee Patiala and another

M.R. Agnihotri, J.—In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the short point for decision by this Court is, as to whether a sanction for constructing a building granted by the Municipal Committee can be withdrawn u/s 193-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, or not.

The Petitioner through his General Attorney applied to the Municipal Committee, Patiala, for sanction of the plan for construction of a shop-cum-office. Along with the necessary plan, the requisite fee of Rs. 50/- was also deposited on 3rd April, 1987. The Municipal Committee, after examining the application, issued the necessary building construction permit to the Petitioner on 8th April, 1987 requiring him to construct the building strictly in accordance with the plan. Thereupon, the Petitioner started digging the foundation and necessary construction of the building when on 21st April, 1987, he was informed that under orders of the Administrator sanction of the plan already granted by the Municipal Committee was withdrawn u/s 193-A of the Punjab Municipal Act 1911. This order of the Municipal Committee, Patiala, dated 21st April, 1987 (Annexure P 4), is sought to be quashed by the Petitioner in this petition, on the ground that neither the Municipal Committee was competent in law to withdraw the sanction for construction of the building once the same had been granted u/s 189 of the said Act, nor was the ground on which the same had been withdrawn existent or relevant to such withdrawal.

In reply to the writ petition filed by the Municipal Committee, the impugned order is sought to be justified on the ground that the plan for construction of the building submitted by the Petitioners attorney could not be entertained by the Municipal Committee because the area known as ''Lila Bhawan'', in which the plot of the Petitioner was situated, stood reserved for special purposes in the Town Planning Scheme sanctioned u/s 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Further, according to the Municipal Committee as the entire area in the Town Planning Scheme of ''Lila Bhawan'' had been declared as unbuilt area, a Town Planning Scheme in respect of that area had been prepared u/s 192 of the Punjab Municipal Act. Therefore, the then Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee was not competent to entertain the application of the Petitioner for sanction of the building plan Regaining the applicability of Section 193-A of the Act, it has been admitted that the said provision was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is staled that mention of Section 193-A was only a typographical mistake and in fact the impugned order had been passed u/s 193 of the Act to which provision the order was otherwise also attributable.

4 In the supplementary affidavit filed by the Petitioner by way of replication to the written statement of the Municipal Committee, the aforesaid factual position has been controverted. It is asserted that no doubt a Town Planning Scheme was made by the Municipal Committee, Patiala and was sanctioned by the State Government u/s 192 of the said Act, but the land of the Petitioner stood excluded from the area reserved for special purpose detailed in the plan annexed to the scheme. Therefore, the land belonging to the Petitioner and many other landowners like him remained with the owners and was never made a part of the aforesaid Town Planning Scheme. It is further asserted that no scheme whatsoever u/s 192 of the said Act was prepared thereafter under which the land belonging to the Petitioner was ever included in the Scheme nor had any such Scheme been sanctioned by the State Government. In these circumstances, sanction to the building plan of the Petitioner bad rightly been communicated to him by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Committee on 8th April, 1987. This sanction once granted could not be withdrawn later on either u/s 192 or u/s 193 of the Act. This replication dated June, 3, 1987 has not been rebutted by the Municipal Committee. After examining the pleadings of the parties and having heard their learned Counsel, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient merit in the pleas taken by the Petitioner. There is no provision under which sanction granted to the plan for the construction of a building can be withdrawn by the Municipal Committee under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Otherwise also, the ground on the basis whereof the sanction has been withdrawn by the impugned order is wholly non-existent and irrelevant.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 21st April, 1987 (Annexure P. 4). by which sanction of the building plan has been withdrawn is quashed and by issuing a writ of mandamus the Municipal Committee, Patiala, is directed to permit the Petitioner to continue with the construction of the building in accordance with the plan already sanctioned by its order dated 8th April, 1987. Thus, this petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 500/-.