).-.•

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 dispos

0e 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.

[1070CJ

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 53nction

it would have said

so.

[10700]

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-se.ction

(5)

dcclarns 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 Jay-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

strongly indicating Parliament's intent to regard the erection cf a building

and the execution

o:E 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, El

8. Sanction io 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

~··

CHET RAM VASHIST v. M.C.D. (Pathak, J.) 10 7 5

of a cinema building. The Standing Committee has to determine whether A

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·DJ

JO. 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

pla'.l. 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 different1y

constituted from the original lay-out plan. SuGh an application would tan·

under section 313. [1081F-G]

In the instant case the application made by the appellant fo~ 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. Kam/a Bhandari

& Ors. I.L.R. (1970) 1, Delhi 66 disapproved.

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, Sureslz

Sethi

and S. K. Bhattacharyya for Respondent No. 1.

Sardar Bahadur Saharya and Vishnu Bahadur Saharya for

B

c

D

E

~ 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, Delh! Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, an application for

sanction to a lay-out plan within the period specified in the sub­

section 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 api;iellant.

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 tl!.e municipal limits of Delhi.

Amin Chand decided on developing the land

as a residential colony

named, after his father, the

"Gangaram Vatika Colony". He submit­

ted a lay-out plan for sanction under s. 313 of the Delhi Municipal

F

G

H

1076

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

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 approv­

ed 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 pro­

vision for the construction of a cinema. Plots Nos. 33, 34 and 35

approved

as separate units for the construction of residential

house&

in the lay-out plan were selected as an amalgamated unit for the

cinema. An applicati:on 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 resi­

dential area, and therefore the request could not be considered.

Some correspondence followed between the appellant and the Corpo­

ration and concluded with a letter of 29th September, 1969 by the

Corporation informing the appellant tbat 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

0 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 rest­

rained from interfering with his right to raise the construction

including the cinema burlding 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

compli­

ance 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 tl1e 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 dis­

missed the writ petition.

Section 313 of the Corporation Act consists of the following

H provisions :

"313. (1) Before utilising, selling or otherwi:se dealing with

any land under section 312, the owner thereof shall send to the

', ' CHET RAM VASHIST v. M.C.D. (Pathak,/.)

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 buildings are to be

used;

(b) the reservatmn 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, conserv­

ing and lighting street or streets.

(2) The provisions of

this Act and the bye-laws made there­

under

as to width of the public streets and the height of build-

' .

ings 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

Standin!! Com­

mittee.

1077

A

B

c

D

(3) Within sixty days after the receipt of any application E

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 develop-.

ment 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 therennder; 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.

F

G

(5) No .person shall utilise,

sel! or otherwise deal with any H

land or lay-out or make any new street without or otherwise

than in conformity with

1he orders of the

Standing Committee

8---{) S. C. India/81

1078

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R. ·

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 neces­

sary to enable it to deal with the said apQlication.

( 6) The lay-out plan referred to earlier. in this section shall,

if so required

by the Standing Committee, be prepared by a J

licensed town

planner." ._.

The principal contention of the appellant before us is that on a

true construction

of s. 313

i! 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 applica­

tion had expired', and reliance

is place on Municipal Corporation

of Delhi &

Ors. v. Smt. Kamala Bhandari & Ors. (

1

). It is necess~.ry

to examine for the purpose of this case what Parliament intended

when enacting

s. 313. Among the obligations vested in the Corpora­

tion under the Act are the construction, maintenance and improve­

ment 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 plot~

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

iwn the plots. Sub-s. (3) requires the

Standing Committee, within sixty days after receipt of the applica­

tion, either to accord sanction to the lay-out plan or to disallow it

ii

{

(1) I.LR. (1970) 1 Delhi 66.

-"'---

CHET RAM VASHIST v. M.C.D. (Pathak, J.)

'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 he 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

si:xty 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

peri:od 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

applicatron 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 whi:ch 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 conse­

quence claimed

by the appellant, there is nothing in the context to

persuade

us to accept the claim. Parliament did not apparently view

the matter of

sanctroning 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 tiihtly woven time-bound

107-9

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

B

c

D

E

p

G

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

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 ithe 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

~ork. If it

appears to the Commissioner that the site of the proposed bui-lding

or work is likely to be affected by any scheme of acquisit!on 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 obtarning 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-~. ( 4) to give notice to the Commissioner of the proposed date

of such commencement; and rf 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 th.e 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

Jay-out plan must be regarded

as pending before the

Standing Com­

mittee and must now be: disposed of without ar(Y further delay.

The appellate Bench of the High Court has taken the

view that

H

the application does not lie under s. 313. As we ha·ve 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-

•

CHET RAM VASHIST v. M.C.D. (Patnak; J.)

vided by the proposed priva1'e 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 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

sanc­

tion for the erection of the building or the execution of the work.

Under sub-s. ( 1) of s. 336, it is openl 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 Stand­

ing Committee to consider.

The Appellate Bench or the High Court has held that the appel­

lant 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

applica­

tion 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 sarftion 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 anj appli­

cation is made f'or 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 differen~ly

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

ntilisation must conform to the original sanctioned lay-out plan. No

utilisation

by the appellant in the manner subsequently proposed is

1081

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

10112

A

B

c

SUPllBMB COURT REPORTS [1981] 1 S.C.R.

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 circumstanc1~s, we direct the first respondent, ;he Munici­

pal Corporation of Delhl, 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 applica­

tion expeditiously in accordance with

law. The

appdlant is not

entitfed to any further :relief at this stage. In the circumstances, the

parties

will bear their costs.

N.

V.K.-