Rameshwar Singh Malik J. - (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the orders dated 16.6.2016 ( Annexure P-11) and 23.6.2016 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondent authorities, thereby declining sanction of building plan and drawing dated 15.7.2015 of the petitioner, asking the petitioner to get licence under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 ('the Act of 1975' for short) or permission for TP Scheme under the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 ( 'the Act of 1994' for short).
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as TP Scheme under the Act of 1994 is concerned, same does not apply to the petitioner, because any such town planing scheme can be granted only in favour a Government agency. So far as obtaining licence under Section 3 of the Act of 1975 is concerned, he submits that since these very respondent authorities have earlier granted sanction to the building plan of petitioner vide communication dated 5.8.1999 (Annexure P-3) sanctioning the building plan Annexure P-4, they proceeded on a misconceived approach, while passing the impugned orders which are patently illegal. He further submits that requirement for obtaining the licence under Section 3 of the Act of 1975 would not be applicable qua the petitioner because he applied for sanction of building plan only for an area measuring 982.91 sq. mtrs (1176 sq. yards) which does not exceed the statutory limit of 1000 sq. meters.
(3.) He would next contend that ownership of the petitioner for total area of 5211 sq. mtrs (6230 sq. yards), would be wholly immaterial and of no consequence. He also refers to receipt No. 40 (Annexure P-6), whereby the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.47,33,613/- with the respondent authorities towards fees for getting the building plan sanctioned, at an earlier point of time, which was for an area of about 5000 sq. meters and the said amount is still being retained by the respondent authorities. In fact, this receipt has been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his alternative prayer, for refund of said amount to the petitioner along with interest. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of this Court in Telu Ram v. State of Haryana 1994 (2) RRR 665. He prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.;