CHET RAM VASHIST versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

Citation: [1981] 1 S.C.R. 1073 · Decided: 05-11-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

).- .• 
CHET RAM VASHIST 
v. 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. 
November 5, 1980 
[R.S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.J 
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act !957 S. 313(1) (3) and (Si-Sancrion to 
a lay-o«t plan-application for-Failure of Standing Committee to accord 
sanction within period 
specified in S. 313(3}-app/fcant whether can regard 
lay-out plan as sanctioned. 
The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 by sub-section (1) of section 
313 obliges the owner of the land. before utilising, selling or otherwise deal· 
ing with the land under section 312 to apply to the Commissioner with a lay-
out plan of the land for sanction to the lay-out plan. 
Sub-section (3) of 
the said section requires the Standing Commitee, within sixty days after receipt 
of the application, either to accord sanction to the lay-out plan or to disallow 
it or ask for further information in respect of it. If further information is 
asked for, the ban on the owner utilising, selling or otherwise de~Iing with the 
land continues to operate until 
orders 
have been passed 
by the, Standing 
Committee on receipt of the information. 
The appellant's father who owned a large parcel of land situated within 
the Municipal limits, decided on developing the land as a residential colony 
and submitted a lay-out plan for sanction under section 313, which was sanc· 
tioned by the Standing Committee on 10th December, 1958. 
After the death 
of the appellant's father, the appellant thought it desirable that the lay-out 
plan should include provision for the construction of a cinema and he submitted 
an application dated 20th April, 1967 accompanied by a copy of the sanction-
ed lay-out plan indicating the proposed changes, and prayed for an early 
sanction in terms of the provisions of section 313. 
The Town Planner of 
the Corporation informed by letter, dated 14th June, 1967 that as the application 
did not fal! within the purview of section 313, and that as the Master Plan 
did not envisage a cinema within a residential area, the request could not be 
considered. Some correspondence followed and ultimately by letter, dated 29th 
September, 1969 the appellant was informed that his proposal could not be 
accepted. 
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court 
alleging that the application had not been considered by the Standing Commit· 
tee and as the period prescribed by the statute for doing so had expired th11 
revised lay-out plan must be treated as having been sanctioned. 
The Singh> 
Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the Corpora-
tion to treat the revised lay-out plan as having been approved but observed 
that it was open to the Standing Committee under sub-section (5) of section 
313 to prohibit the construction of the cinema. 
The respondent-Corporation 
preferred a Letters Patent Appeal and the Division Bench of the High Court 
allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant was 
not entitled to invoke 
sub-section (3) of section 313. 
In the appeal to this Court, on the question, whether the failure ·of the 
Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation to consider under mb·lieCtion 
A 
B 
c 
D 
p 
G 
'1:074 
SUPREME.COURT REPORTS 
[1981] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
(3) of section 313 of the. Act, an application for sanclion to a lay-out plan 
within the period specified in the sub-section can result in a deemed grant of 
the sanction : 
HELD: 
I. Merely because the Standing Committee does not consider the grant of 
sanction on the application made under sub-section (]) of section 313 within 
the specified period, does not entitle the applicant to regard the Jay-out plan 
B; 
as having been sanctioned. [1080F] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
2. The Municipal Corporation is obliged to refer the application dated 
20th April, 1967 alongwith the lay-out plan accompanying it, to its Standing 
Committee !Ci dispos0e of the application expeditiously in accordance with law. 
[1082B] 
3. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 313 prescribe a period within which 
the Standing Committee is expected to deal with the application made under 
sub-section (1). 
But neither sub-section declares that if the Standing Committee 
does not deal with the application within the prescribed period of sixty days 
it will be deemed that 
sanction 
has been 
accorded. 
The statute merely 
requires the Standing Committee to consider the application within sixty days. 
It stops short of indicating what will be the result if the Standing C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.