LexM/S. LIVE OAK RESORT (P) LTD. AND ANR. versus PANCHGANI HILL STATION MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. LIVE OAK RESORT (P) LTD. AND ANR. A v. PANCHGANI HILL STATION MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR. - AUGUST 31, 200 I [A.P. MISRA AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] B - Town Planning : Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Sections 37 and c 45. Buildings-Construction of-Within the Jurisdiction of Municipal Council-Hotel sought permission to construct an additional floor consequent to conferment of "3-star" status on it-Municipal Council referred the matter to Director, Town Planning-Director granted permission of additional Floor D Space Index (FSJ) and also relaxed height restrictions-Consequently, additional construction commenced-Subsequently, Town Planning Department informed the Municipal Council not to grant permission as the total area of construction was more than that permissible-Municipal Council rejected the permission and ordered demolition on additional construction-High Court dismissed writ petition and review petition-Correctness of-Held: Municipal E council is under statutory obligation to abide by the Director's sanction-The Council cannot refuse permission once the additional FSJ is granted-Hence, Municipal Council's action, not sustainable-However, If there is an infraction of the FSJ or of the Building Rules, Municipality is liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. F The appellant sought permission from the Municipal Council for construction of an additional floor in its hotel consequent to the conferment of a "3-Star" status on it. The Municipal Council referred the matter to the Director, Town Planning seeking guidance whether additional Floor Space Index (FSI) could be granted for the said construction. The Director, Town G planning not only granted permission of additional FSI but also granted relaxation on the height as well under Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional - and Town Planning Act, 1966. Thereafter, the appellant commenced construction of an additional floor in its existing hotel premises. Subsequently, the Assistant Director, Town Planning informed the H 433 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Municipal Council that the permission for construction ought not to be granted, the reason being the total area of construction was more than the construction area which was permissible and sanctioned by the Director, Town Planning. Thereupon, the Municipal Council rejected the permission granted and issued order of demolition of the portion constructed, being unauthorised. B The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition as also the review petition. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: I. The Director, Town Planning by a letter, has categorically C recorded grant of permission of additional Floor Space Index (FSI) and having regard to an additional floor, it would obviously be more than the sanctioned height of the building. The appellants were not only authorised to construct an additional floor but the memo also contained a relaxation on the height as well being more than the permissible sanctioned limit The situation therefore, turns out to be that the Director, Town Planning being the authority in terms D of the provisions of law did grant sanction of an additional floor with an additional height upon proper relaxation being granted. This aspect of the matter, the High Court has not considered at all and thus clearly fell into an error. The Director himself as a matter of fact did place reliance on provision No. 28.2 of the building byelaws applicable to 'B' and 'C' class Municipalities in the State. The entire reference to the Director was by reason of the above E said provision and all the statutory agencies have acted thereupon. [446-G-H; 447-A-B[ F 2. Provision No. 28.2 of the building byelaws having the definite application in the contextual facts, sanction from the Director, Town Planning in terms of the Standardised Building Byelaws for 'B' and 'C' Class Municipal Councils of the State supersedes any further power of the Council. The power conferred under provision No. 28.2 being supreme, the Council is under statutory obligation to abide by the decisions as contained in the Director's letter and grant sanction in terms of Section 45 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 but in accordance therewith: This power stands G absolute and there is no escape from that sanction. But there is no unguided power of the Director-The powers of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.