2007 (5) TMI 632 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Planning permission for construction of a hotel.
2. Quashing of specific annexures.
3. Applicability and interpretation of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.
4. Applicability and interpretation of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.
5. Whether the temporary freeze on construction activities applied to already approved building plans.
6. Whether the respondents acquired a vested right to construct based on the previously approved building plan.
7. The role and jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation in granting building permissions.
8. The effect of subsequent notifications and amendments on the respondents' building plans.
9. The concept of deemed sanction under Section 247 of the 1994 Act.
10. The balance between public interest and private rights.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Planning Permission for Construction of a Hotel:
The respondents applied for planning permission to construct a hotel on the Mall Road in Shimla. The application was initially approved by the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 16.01.1998, subject to obtaining further building permission from the local authority.

2. Quashing of Specific Annexures:
The respondents sought to quash certain annexures (PD, PE, PF & PH) dated 24.3.1998, 1.9.1999, 6.6.2000, and 8.2.2002 respectively, which were related to the planning permissions and subsequent rejections.

3. Applicability and Interpretation of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977:
The 1977 Act provides for planning and development of land, including the preparation of development plans. The Act defines 'development' and 'planning area' and mandates the State Government to publish interim development plans in the official gazette. The Act also vests the overall control of development in the Director once notified in the official gazette.

4. Applicability and Interpretation of the Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994:
The 1994 Act requires individuals intending to erect buildings to apply for sanction from the Commissioner. Sections 243 to 247 outline the process for obtaining building permissions, including the grounds for refusal and the concept of deemed sanction if no decision is communicated within sixty days.

5. Temporary Freeze on Construction Activities:
A temporary freeze on construction activities in certain areas of Shimla was imposed by the Government on 17.04.2000. This freeze was communicated to the respondents, and their application for building plans was rejected on 06.06.2000, citing the freeze among other reasons.

6. Vested Right to Construct:
The High Court held that the respondents had a vested right to construct based on the previously approved building plan, as the plan had been sanctioned before the freeze. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the right to construct is subject to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including subsequent amendments.

7. Role and Jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation:
The Municipal Corporation's role is to grant building permissions in accordance with the 1994 Act and building bye-laws. The Corporation must ensure that building plans comply with all relevant laws, including the 1977 Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Corporation could not grant permission in violation of the freeze or subsequent notifications.

8. Effect of Subsequent Notifications and Amendments:
Subsequent notifications and amendments, including those defining 'core area' and 'heritage zone,' imposed additional restrictions on construction activities. The Supreme Court held that these amendments were binding and that the respondents could not claim a vested right to construct in violation of these regulations.

9. Deemed Sanction under Section 247 of the 1994 Act:
Section 247 provides for deemed sanction if no decision is communicated within sixty days. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this provision does not apply if the application is attended to and defects are pointed out. The respondents' application had defects that were not fully remedied, and the freeze order further prevented the grant of permission.

10. Balance between Public Interest and Private Rights:
The Supreme Court emphasized that public interest, including the protection of heritage zones and ecological considerations, must override private interests. The regulations and freeze orders were enacted in public interest and were binding on the respondents.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the respondents did not have a vested right to construct based on the previously approved building plan. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents' application for building permission was subject to compliance with all applicable laws, including subsequent amendments and notifications.