http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: CHET RAM VASHIST

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1980

BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1981 AIR  653            1981 SCR  (1)1073  1980 SCC  (4) 647

ACT:      Delhi Municipal  Corporation Act 1957 S. 313(1) (3) and (5)-Sanction to  a lay-out  plan-application for-Failure  of Standing  Committee   to  accord   sanction  within   period specified in  S. 313(3)-applicant whether can regard lay-out plan as sanctioned.

HEADNOTE:      The Delhi  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  1957  by  sub- section (1)  of section  313 obliges  the owner of the land, before utilising, selling or otherwise dealing with the land under section 312 to apply to the Commissioner with a layout plan of  the land  for sanction  to the  lay-out plan.  Sub- section (3)  of  the  said  section  requires  the  Standing Committee,  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 dealing 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 sanctioned 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 sanctioned 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 fall  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

considered by  the Standing  Committee  and  as  the  period prescribed by  the statute  for doing  so  had  expired  the revised  lay-out   plan  must  be  treated  as  having  been sanctioned. The  Single Judge  of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition  and directed  the Corporation  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 sub-section 1074 (3) of  section 313  of the Act, an application for sanction to a  lay-out plan  within the  period specified in the sub- section can result in a deemed grant of the sanction: ^      HELD: 1. Merely because the Standing Committee does not consider the grant of sanction on the application made under sub-section (1)  of section 313 within the specified period, does not entitle the applicant to regard the lay-out plan as having been sanctioned. [1080F]      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 to dispose 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 Committee fails to do so. [1070C]      4. If the Act intended that the failure of the Standing Committee to  deal with  the matter  within  the  Prescribed period should imply a deemed sanction it would have said so. [1070C]      5. When  sub-section (3)  declares  that  the  Standing Committee  shall   within  sixty  days  of  receipt  of  the application deal  with it,  and when  the  proviso  to  sub- section (5)  declares that  the Standing Committee shall not in any  case delay the passing of orders for more than sixty days the statute merely prescribes a standard of time within which it  expects the  Standing Committee  to dispose of the matter. It  is a  standard which the statute considers to be reasonable. But  non-compliance does  not result in a deemed sanction to the lay-out plan. [1070E-F]      6. Parliament  did not  apparently view  the matter  of sanctioning a  lay-out  plan  as  possessing  the  immediacy associated with  the actual  erection of  a  building or the execution  of   a  work,   where  on   the  failure  of  the Commissioner to  refuse  sanction  or  to  communicate  such refusal within  a specified period the applicant is entitled to commence and proceed with the building or work. [1070G]      7. There  is nothing  in  section  313  which  has  the contextual character  of sections  336 and 337. A perusal of sections 336  and 337  confirms that the cases covered there are controlled  by  a  tightly  woven  time-bound  programme

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

strongly  indicating   Parliament’s  intent  to  regard  the erection of  a building  and the  execution  of  a  work  as matters of  the utmost  expedition and urgency. This network of provisions demonstrate the urgency attached by Parliament to the  case where  a building  has to  be erected or a work executed. [1079H-1080A, E]      8. Sanction  to the  lay-out plan is also a preliminary step  in   the  process   of  utilising  the  land  for  the construction of buildings thereon. It is necessary to obtain that sanction  because it is a pre-requisite to the grant of sanction for  the erection  of the building or the execution of the work. [1081B]      9. The  appellant was  right in  making the application under section 313 in regard to the amalgamation of the three plots for the proposed construction 1075 of  a   cinema  building.  The  Standing  Committee  has  to determine whether  the lay-out  plan  now  proposed  can  be sanctioned. It  may refuse  the sanction  by reason  of sub- section (4)  of section  313 on any of the grounds specified therein. That will be a matter for the Standing Committee to consider. [1081C-D]      10. It  is  open  to  the  owner  of  the  land,  after obtaining sanction  to the  original lay-out  plan to  apply afresh for sanction to a revised lay-out plan. Circumstances may  arise,   after  the   original  sanction  was  granted, requiring the  owner to  incorporate changes in the original lay-out plan. In that event, when an application is made for the grant of sanction to a revised lay-out plan it is, as it were, an  application for  the grant  of a  fresh  sanction. There is a fresh lay-out plan for which sanction is applied. It is  differently constituted  from  the  original  lay-out plan. Such  an application  would fall  under  section  313. [1081F-G]      In  the  instant  case  the  application  made  by  the appellant for  sanction to the lay-out plan must be regarded as pending  before the  Standing  Committee  which  must  be disposed of without any further delay. [1080G]      Municipal Corporation of Delhi & ors. versus Smt. Kamla Bhandari & Ors. I.L.R. (1970) 1, Delhi 66 disapproved.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 147 of 1974.      Appeal by  special leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated 16-10-1973 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 238/72.      Dr.  L.   M.  Singhvi   and  Mahinder  Narain  for  the Appellant.      Lal Narain Sinha Att. Genl. of India, B. P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and S. K. Bhattacharyya for Respondent No. 1.      Sardar Bahadur  Saharya and  Vishnu Bahadur Saharya for Respondent No. 2.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      PATHAK, J.-Does  the failure  of the Standing Committee of the  Delhi Municipal Corporation to consider under sub-s. (3) of  s. 313,  Delhi Municipal  Corporation Act,  1957, an application for sanction to a lay-out plan within the period specified in  the subsection  result in  a "deemed" grant of the sanction?  That is the principal question raised in this appeal by  special  leave  which  is  directed  against  the judgment and  order of  the  Delhi  High  Court  allowing  a Letters Patent  Appeal and  dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

    The appellant’s  father,  Amin  Chand,  owned  a  large parcel of  land in  village  Chowkhandi  near  Tilak  Nagar, Najafgarh Road,  New Delhi. The land was situated within the municipal limits  of Delhi. Amin Chand decided on developing the land  as a  residential colony  named, after his father, the "Gangaram  Vatika Colony".  He submitted  a lay-out plan for sanction under s. 313 of the Delhi Municipal 1076 Corporation Act,  1957.  The  plan  was  sanctioned  by  the Standing Committee  of the  Delhi Municipal  Corporation  by Resolution No.  17 passed  on 10th December, 1958. A revised lay-out plan  was approved  by  the  Standing  Committee  by Resolution No.  871 dated  12th November,  1964.  Meanwhile, Amin Chand  died, and  the appellant,  his son,  thought  it desirable that the lay-out plan should include provision for the construction  of a  cinema. Plots  Nos. 33,  34  and  35 approved  as   separate  units   for  the   construction  of residential houses  in the  lay-out plan were selected as an amalgamated unit  for the  cinema. An application dated 20th April, 1967, accompanied by a copy of the sanctioned lay-out plan indicating  the proposed  changes,  was  filed  by  the appellant and  he prayed  for "an early sanction in terms of the provisions  of s.  313" of  the Act. The Town Planner of the Corporation informed him by letter dated 14th June, 1967 that his  application did  not fall within the purview of s. 313 and  that, moreover,  the Master Plan did not envisage a cinema within  a residential area, and therefore the request could  not   be  considered.  Some  correspondence  followed between the appellant and the Corporation and concluded with a  letter   of  29th  September,  1969  by  the  Corporation informing the  appellant that  his  proposal  could  not  be accepted because  it would  contravene the  Master  Plan  of Delhi.      The Appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court of  Delhi   alleging  that  the  application  had  not  been considered by  the Standing  Committee, and  as  the  period prescribed by  the statute  for doing  so  had  expired  the revised  lay-out   plan  must  be  treated  as  having  been sanctioned. Accordingly,  he prayed  that the respondents be restrained from  interfering with  his right  to  raise  the construction including  the cinema  building  in  accordance with the revised lay-out plan. A learned Single Judge of the High Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the Corporation to treat the revised lay-out plan as having been approved, but  observed that  the  appellant  would  not  be entitled to  construct a  cinema  on  the  land  unless  due compliance had  been effected  with other  provisions of the law and  that it  was open  to the  Standing Committee under sub-s. (5)  of s.  313 to  prohibit the  construction of the cinema. The  Corporation preferred  a Letters Patent Appeal, and a  Division Bench  of the High Court by its judgment and order dated 16th October, 1973 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment  and order  of the  learned  Single  Judge  and dismissed the writ petition.      Section 313  of the  Corporation Act  consists  of  the following provisions:           "313. (1)  Before utilising,  selling or otherwise      dealing with  any land  under section  312,  the  owner      thereof shall send to the 1077      Commissioner a  written application with a lay-out plan      of the land showing the following particulars, namely:-                (a) the plots into which the land is proposed           to  be  divided  for  the  erection  of  buildings           thereon and the purpose or purposes for which such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

         buildings are to be used;                (b) the  reservation or allotment of any site           for  any  street,  open  space,  park,  recreation           ground,  school,   market  or   any  other  public           purpose;                (c) the  intended level,  direction and width           of street or streets,                (d) the regular line of street or streets;                (e)  the   arrangements  to   be   made   for           levelling,    paving,     metalling,     flagging,           channelling, sewering,  draining,  conserving  and           lighting street or streets.           (2) The  provisions of  this Act  and the bye-laws      made thereunder  as to  width of the public streets and      the height  of buildings  abutting thereon, shall apply      in the  case of  streets referred to in sub-section (1)      and all the particulars referred to in that sub-section      shall be  subject  to  the  sanction  of  the  Standing      Committee.           (3) Within  sixty days  after the  receipt of  any      application  under   sub-section   (1)   the   Standing      Committee shall  either accord  sanction to the lay-out      plan on such conditions as it may think fit or disallow      it or ask for further information with respect to it.           (4) Such sanction shall be refused-                (a) if  the particulars  shown in the lay-out           plan would  conflict with  any arrangements  which           have been  made or which are in the opinion of the           Standing Committee  likely to be made for carrying           out any  general scheme  of development  of  Delhi           whether contained  in the  master plan  or a zonal           development plan prepared for Delhi or not; or                (b) if the said lay-out plan does not conform           to the  provisions of  this Act  and bye-laws made           thereunder; or                (c) if any street proposed in the plan is not           designed so as to connect at one end with a street           which is already open.           (5) No  person shall  utilise, sell  or  otherwise      deal with  any land  or lay-out  or make any new street      without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders      of the Standing Committee 1078      and if  further information is asked for, no step shall      be taken  to utilise,  sell or  otherwise deal with the      land or to lay-out or make the street until orders have      been passed upon receipt of such information:           Provided that the passing of such orders shall not      be in  any case  delayed for more than sixty days after      the Standing  Committee has  received  the  information      which it  considers necessary to enable it to deal with      the said application.           (6) The  lay-out plan  referred to earlier in this      section  shall,   if  so   required  by   the  Standing      Committee, be prepared by a licensed town planner."      The principal  contention of the appellant before us is that on  a true  construction of  s. 313 it must be regarded that ’there  is no  restriction on his utilising, selling or otherwise dealing  with the land in accordance with the lay- out plan  because the  time prescribed by sub-s. (3) for the Standing Committee  to take  action on  the application  had expired’, and  reliance is place on Municipal Corporation of Delhi &  ors. v.  Smt. Kamala  Bhandari  &  ors.(1).  It  is necessary to  examine for  the purpose  of  this  case  what Parliament  intended   when  enacting   s.  313.  Among  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

obligations vested  in the Corporation under the Act are the construction, maintenance and improvement of streets. Public streets vest  in the  Corporation and  the  Commissioner  is enjoined to  ensure their  maintenance and  repair. Sections 313 to  316 related to private streets. Section 312 provides that if the owner of any land utilises, sells, leases out or otherwise disposes  of such  land for  the  construction  of buildings thereon,  he must  lay-out and  make a  street  or streets giving  access to  the plots in which the land is to be divided and connecting with an existing public or private street. Sub-s.  (1) of s. 313 obliges the owner of the land, before utilising, selling or otherwise dealing with the land under s.  312 to  apply to  the Commissioner  with a lay-out plan of  the land  for sanction  to the  lay-out  plan.  The particulars detailed  in sub-s.  (1) required  in a  lay-out plan bear on the provisions of s. 312. The lay-out plan will indicate in what manner the plots are proposed to be divided and the  use to  which they  will be  applied as well as the condition and direction of the streets, which provide access to them,  so that  it can  be determined whether the private streets proposed  in the  lay-out plan  will adequately  and sufficiently serve the buildings raised on the plots. Sub-s. (3) requires the Standing Committee, within sixty days after receipt of the application, either to accord sanction to the lay-out plan or to disallow it 1079 or ask  for further information in respect of it. If further information is  asked for,  the ban  on the owner utilising, selling or  otherwise dealing  with the  land  continues  to operate until  orders  have  been  passed  by  the  Standing Committee on receipt of the information. That is sub-s. (5). Its proviso  lays down that the passing of such orders shall not be  in any  case delayed  for more than sixty days after the Standing Committee has received the information which it considers necessary.      Sub-ss. (3) and (5) of s. 313 prescribe a period within which the  Standing Committee  is expected  to deal with the application made  under sub-s.  (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 Committee fails to  do so.  If it  intended that  the failure  of  the Standing Committee  to  deal  with  the  matter  within  the prescribed period  should imply  a deemed  sanction it would have said  so. They  are two distinct things, the failure of the Standing  Committee to  deal with the application within sixty days  and that the failure should give rise to a right in the  applicant to  claim that sanction has been accorded. The second  does not  necessarily follow  from the  first. A right created  by legal fiction is ordinarily the product of express legislation.  It seems  to us  that when  sub-s. (3) declares that the Standing Committee shall within sixty days of receipt  of the  application deal  with it,  and when the proviso to  sub-s. (5)  declares that the Standing Committee shall not  in any  case delay the passing of orders for more than sixty  days the statute merely prescribes a standard of time within  which it  expects  the  Standing  Committee  to dispose of  the matter.  It is  a standard which the statute considers to  be’ reasonable.  But non-compliance  does  not result in a deemed sanction to the lay-out plan.      Besides the  absence of  express language  creating the legal consequence claimed by the appellant, there is nothing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

in  the   context  to  persuade  us  to  accept  the  claim. Parliament did not apparently view the matter of sanctioning a lay-out  plan as  possessing the immediacy associated with the actual  erection of  a building  or the  execution of  a work, where  on the  failure of  the Commissioner  to refuse sanction or  to communicate  such refusal within a specified period the  applicant is  entitled to  commence and  proceed with the  building or work. There is nothing in s. 313 which has the  contextual character  of ss. 336 and 337. A perusal of ss. 336 and 337 confirms that the cases covered there are controlled by a tightly woven time-bound 1080 programme strongly  indicating Parliament’s intent to regard the direction  of a  building and the execution of a work as matters of  the utmost expedition and urgency. Sub-s. (3) of s. 336 requires the Commissioner to communicate the sanction to  the   applicant  and,  where  sanction  is  refused,  to communicate the  refusal with a statement of his reasons for such refusal.  If the  period specified  in sub-s. (1) of s. 337  has   expired  without  the  Commissioner  refusing  to sanction or, if refusing, without communicating the refusal, the applicant  can commence  and proceed  with the projected building or work. If it appears to the Commissioner that the site of  the proposed  building or  work  is  likely  to  be affected by  any scheme  of acquisition of land for a public purpose or by any of the other public works mentioned in the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 337, he may withhold sanction of the proposed  building or  work, but  even therefor not more than three  months and  the period  specified  in  the  sub- section is  computed as  commencing from  the expiry of such period. That is not all. On the sanction or deemed sanction, the applicant  must under  sub-s. (3) of s. 337 commence the erection of the building or execution of the work within one year. Failure  to do  so will  reduce him  to the  need  for taking fresh  steps for obtaining the sanction. Then, before commencing the  erection of the building or execution of the work with the period specified in sub-s. (3), he is obliged, by virtue  of sub-s.  (4) to give notice to the Commissioner of the  proposed date  of  such  commencement;  and  if  the commencement does  not take  place within  seven days  fresh notice is necessary. This network of provisions demonstrates the urgency  attached by  Parliament to  the  case  where  a building has  to be  erected  or  a  work  executed.  It  is conspicuous by  its absence in s. 313. We are, therefore, of opinion that if the Standing Committee does not consider the grant of  sanction on  the application made under sub-s. (1) of s. 313 within the specified period, it is not open to the applicant  to   regard  the  lay-out  plan  as  having  been sanctioned.      We are unable to endorse the contrary view taken by the High Court  in Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s case (supra) and overrule that decision.      The application  made by  the appellant for sanction to the lay-out  plan must  be regarded  as pending  before  the Standing Committee  and must  now be disposed of without any further delay.      The appellate  Bench of  the High  Court has  taken the view that  the application  does not lie under s. 313. As we have already  observed, the purpose of filing a lay-out plan under sub-s.  (1)  of  s.  313  is  related  immediately  to determining whether the access pro- 1081 vided by  the  proposed  private  streets  sufficiently  and adequately serves the purpose enacted in s. 312, and that is why the  lay-out plan must show the particulars specified in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

sub-s. (1) of s. 313. Sanction to the lay-out plan is also a preliminary step  in the  process of  utilising the land for the construction  of buildings  thereon. It  is necessary to obtain that  sanction because  it is  a pre-requisite to the grant of  sanction for  the erection  of the building or the execution of  the work.  Under sub-s.  (1) of  s. 336, it is open to the Commissioner to refuse sanction of a building or work, in  cases falling  under s.  312, if the lay-out plans have not  been sanctioned  in accordance with s. 313. In our view, the  appellant was  right in  making  the  application under s.  313 regard  to the amalgamation of the three plots for the  proposed construction  of a  cinema  building.  The Standing Committee has to determine whether the lay-out plan now proposed  can be  sanctioned. It may refuse the sanction by reason  of sub-s.  (4) of  s. 313  on any  of the  ground specified therein.  That will  be a  matter for the Standing Committee to consider.      The Appellate Bench of the High Court has held that the appellant is not entitled to invoke sub-s. (3) of s. 313 for the grant  of sanction to the revised lay-out plan. The High Court was  apparently of  the view  that s. 313 is attracted only when  the owner  of the  land has  not yet  utilised or otherwise dealt  with  the  land  and  the  application  for sanction envisaged  under s.  313 is  the first  application made for  the purpose.  The High  Court has  referred to the circumstances that the owner had already commenced to act on the sanction  granted to the original lay-out plan. We think that the  limited view  taken  by  the  High  Court  is  not justified. It  is open to the owner of land, after obtaining sanction to  the original  lay-out plan, to apply afresh for sanction to a revised lay-out plan. Circumstances may arise, after the original sanction was granted, requiring the owner to incorporate changes in the original lay-out plan. In that event, when an application is made for the grant of sanction to a  revised lay-out plan it is, as it were, an application for the  grant of a fresh sanction. There is a fresh lay-out plan for  which  sanction  is  applied.  It  is  differently constituted  from   the  original   lay-out  plan.  Such  an application will  fall under  s. 313. It is no bar to making such an  application and  entertaining it that the owner has commenced to  utilise the  land or  otherwise dealt with it. Section 312  implies that  the  land  must  be  utilised  in accordance with  the lay-out  plan. If  the  land  has  been utilised to  any degree  by the appellant before 20th April, 1967,  the   utilisation  must   conform  to   the  original sanctioned lay-out  plan. No utilisation by the appellant in the manner subsequently proposed is 1082 permissible unless  and until  sanction is  accorded to  the revised lay-out plan. If such sanction is refused, it is the original sanction  which will  continue to  operate, and the lay out  plan to  which such sanction was granted is the one that matters.      In the  circumstances, we  direct the first respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to refer the application dated  20th   April,  1967   along  with  the  lay-out  plan accompanying it  to its  Standing Committee and the Standing Committee will  dispose of  the application expeditiously in accordance with  law. The  appellant is  not entitled to any further relief  at this  stage. In  the  circumstances,  the parties will bear their costs. N. V. K. 1083

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9