RSA No.4094 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4094 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.1.2009 Municipal Committee, Meham ......Appellant Versus Mahadev Gupta and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendant’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for mandatory injunction has been decreed with costs and defendant- appellant has been directed to issue letter regarding the sanction of building plan/revised building plan submitted by the respondent for reconstruction of the building. Briefly stated, as per the allegations set out in the plaint, the plaintiff is the owner of the property as detailed in the plaint which is situated in the Main Bazar, Meham. The plaintiff submitted a site plan for reconstruction of building as Aggarwal Market after demolishing the same in the year 1991 at the same place for sanction of the appellant. He also deposited the requisite charges as per the building bye-laws. The building plan was sanctioned by the appellant vide its resolution dated 13.4.1992. However, later on, the appellant informed the respondent that the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, has not approved the said resolution and directed him to deposit building development charges at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yard. Since the demand raised by the appellant regarding development RSA No.4094 of 2008 (O&M) 2 charges was illegal, the defendant filed a suit which was decreed by the Civil Court on 9.3.1998. The appeal against the said decree was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.1998. Despite this, the appellant did not issue sanction letter of the building plan. Since the litigation took a long time, there arose a need to revise the building plan; therefore, the plaintiff-respondent submitted the revised building plan to the Committee on 3.4.2002 for sanction. He also deposited the prescribed fee of Rs.939/- vide receipt dated 3.4.2002. It is further averred that there is deeming provision of sanction under the municipal law for sanctioning of building plan under the Municipal Law. The plaintiff collected building material and also applied for bank loan. However, the appellant vide letter dated 18.7.2003 informed the respondent that defendant-respondent No.2 has returned the building plan for completion of certain requirements. Thus, the case of the respondent is that these requirements are not applicable to him. The appellant failed to communicate about the sanction of his plan despite a lapse of period of two years. He also served a legal notice. Hence, the suit. The defendant-appellant contested the suit pleading that no statutory right of the respondent has been violated and the suit is not maintainable. On merits, it was stated that the respondent was not the legal owner in possession of the suit property and he had not paid the requisite fee as per the Govt. instructions and the respondent could not raise the construction unless the site plan was sanctioned and the appellant cannot be constrained to omit the due compliance of the relevant rules. Thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After perusing the evidence of the parties as well as the arguments advanced on their behalf, the trial Court came to the conclusion RSA No.4094 of 2008 (O&M) 3 that the site plan submitted by the plaintiff was allowed to be sanctioned by the appellant and further that the respondent was entitled to a decree for mandatory injunction directing the respondents to give the sanction letter to the plaintiff-respondent regarding revised building plan. Consequently the suit was decreed with costs vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2007. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008. Still not satisfied, the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. I find no merit in this appeal. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff submitted the site plan on 16.12.1991. As per Section 205 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act'), the appellant was under an obligation to either sanction or communicate refusal regarding such sanction to the plaintiff- respondent within 60 days on receipt of the application of the plaintiff but in the case in hand, it was not done. The appellant vide its resolution No.6 dated 30.4.1992 granted the said sanction which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent was liable to pay development charges. The said order was challenged before the Civil Court and the Civil Court set aside the same vide its judgment and decree dated 9.3.1998. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed vide Ex.P-3 and the development charges pertaining to the building proposed to be constructed was held not to be leviable. Thus, the objection of the appellant that development charges remained unrebutted by the plaintiff-respondent is without any basis. The plaintiff-respondent RSA No.4094 of 2008 (O&M) 4 submitted revised plan on 3.4.2002 but again the appellant did not communicate the plaintiff-respondent in writing about the sanction or refusal thereof within 60 days of its submission. Thus, the revised plan of the plaintiff-respondent were deemed to have been sanctioned in view of Section 205 of the Act. In this regard, the Bye-law No.9 of the Haryana Municipal Building Bye Laws, 1982 is also relevant, which reads as under:- 9.Sanction to erect or re-erect “After an application in the prescribed form containing the required information and accompanied by necessary documents and fee is received, the (committee) shall after making such inquiry as it may consider necessary, pass an order within the period prescribed in section 205, either sanctioning it or rejecting it and convey the same in BR IV along with one mounted copy of the plan duly sanctioned or rejected as the case may be .....” It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent had paid the necessary fee at the time of submission of the original/revised site plan. Thus, there was no ground for the appellant to withhold the issuance of letter sanctioning the original/revised plan. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. January 14, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE