COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHIMLA versus PREM LATA SOOD AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 898 · Decided: 15-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
A 
COMMISSIONER OF MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, SHIMLA 
r 
v. 
PREM LA TA SOOD AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 2007 
B 
[S.S. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
The Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977-Sections 
' -
2(g), 2(o), 3, JO, 14, 17, 25, 30, 31, 76-State granting permission to 
, 
c 
construct hotel under 1977 Act-Building plan for hotel submitted before 
local authority for sanction/approval under 1994 Act-Subsequently, State 
issuing notifications and amending regulations placing restrictions on 
construction in area in which hotel intended to be developed-Local authority 
in view of amendments in regulations rejecting application for sanction of 
building plans-Decision of local authority challenged on the ground that 
D building plan sanctioned by State under 1977 Act binding on local authority-
Held, the 1977 Act and the 1994 Act operate in different fields and are 
complementary and supplementary to each other and there is no conflict 
between the two Acts-The 1977 Act deals with laying down overall poJicy 
i 
matter and the 1994 Act deals with grant of building plans in terms of 
E 
provisions thereof-Sanction for development granted under 1977 Act would 
not mean that the provisions of 1994 Act or the building bye-laws not 
required to be complied with-Besides, notification issued amending 
regulations and placing restrictions on construction binding upon the local 
authority and sanction could not have been granted in violation thereof-
Jn the facts held, no vested right can be said to have accrued in the matter-
F Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994-Sections 243, 244, 
245, 246 and 247. 
~ 
~ 
Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 intended to construct a hotel on the Mall Road 
in the town of Shimla and filed an application for grant of planning permission 
to the Town and Country Planning Department which was approved by the 
G Government ofHimachal Pradesh by an order dated 16.01.1998 under Section 
31(1) of The Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 subject 
inter alia, to the condition that building permission should be obtained from 
• 
the local authority concerned before commencement of the development. An 
application for sanction of the building plan in terms of the provisions of the 
H 
898 
\ 
COMMNil. OF MUNICIPAL CORPN., SHIMLA "· PREM LATA SOOD 
899 
Himachal Pradesh Muni<:ipal Corporation Act, 1994 and building bye-laws A 
framed thereunder was submitted to the appellant-Corporation on 07.07.1999. 
The Municipal Corporation, however, returned the said plans asking for 
certain clarifications. Respondents resubmitted the (llans upon purported 
compliance of the objections on ! O.a.t.2000. However, immediately thereafter 
on 17 .4.2000 a purported temporary·ffteZe on comtruction activities in some 
areas appertaining to Shim la Planning Area was issuerl by41te G<Wernment B 
of Himachal Pradesh. The said temporary ban was-clarified on or about 
25.7.2000 by stating that the building plan cases already cleared by the 
Government/Cabinet may be processed further in aceordance with the Rules 
and Regulations. However, before the appellant-Corporation could consider 
the respondent's ' application for grant of sanction of the development plan in C 
terms of the 1994 Act and/or building bye-laws framed thereunder, the State 
of H.P. issued notification in terms of sub-sections ( 4) and 5 of Section 17 of 
the 1977 Act, making further amendments in the interim development plans 
imposing restrictions on construction in Shimla Planning Area and 
subsequently also amended regulations by issuing notification dated 22.8.2000 
declaring 'core area' and 'heritage zone' and putting further restrictions on 
construction in respect of the said areas within which only the respondents 
had filed their application for grant of sanction of the building plans. In view 
of the notification, the application for sanction of the building plans wi:s 
ultimately rejected by the Corporation. 
Respondents filed writ petition in the High Court seeking directions to 
D 
E 
the appellant-Corporation to accord necessary pla!lning permission to the 
respondents for construction of hotel. Division Bench allowed writ petition 
holding that the purported declaration in relation to the core area and heritage 
zone would not apply in the case of the respondents in view of the fact that the 
building plan submirted by them before the Director in terms of the provisions F 
of the 1977 Act had already been allowe

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