MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Municipal Committee, Thanesar (hereinafter described as the petitioner) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that the orders dated 23-1-1986 and 28-3-1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Thanesar (respondent No. 2) and the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana Local Government Department (respondent No. 1) resulting in the deemed sanction of the building plan submitted by respondent No. 3 be quashed.

(2.) The facts relevant for deciding the issue raised in the petition are that on receipt of the application dated 27-9-1994 submitted by respondent No. 3 for sanction of the building plan, the petitioner wrote letters dated 8-11-1994, 16-2-1995, 29-3-1995, 23-8-1995 and 15-12-1995 requiring him to meet the objections one of which was that the building plan is contrary to the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (Part-II). Respondent No. 3 did not take any tangible step to meet the objections raised by the petitioner. Instead, he filed a petition under Section 240 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before respondent No. 2 with the prayer that the petitioner be directed to sanction his building plan. By an order dated 23-1-1996, respondent No. 2 accepted the prayer of respondent No. 3 and directed the President of the Municipal Committee to sanction the disputed building plan. The appeal preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 23-1-1996 has been dismissed by respondent No. 1.

(3.) The all important question which arises for determination in this petition is whether the rule of deemed sanction of building plan contained in S.205(5) of the Act can be invoked for compelling the competent authority of the Municipal Committee to sanction building plan irrespective of the fact that the same is contrary to the duly sanctioned town planning scheme or it is contrary to the provisions of law.