Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Alok Kumar vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation on 5 January, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Rajesh Kumar
[2026:JHHC:86-DB]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 341 of 2024
Dr. Alok Kumar, aged 58 years, son of Late Domi Saha, resident of H-
86, Argora Housing Colony, Ranchi, P.O.-Ashok Nagar, P.S.-Argora,
District-Ranchi.
... ... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Ranchi.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.-
G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
3. Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi,
P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
4. Town Planner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, P.O.-G.P.O.,
P.S.-Kotwali, District-Ranchi.
5. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan,
Dhurwa, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
... ... Respondents/Respondents
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
-------
For the Appellant : In-Person
For the Resp.-RMC : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Karbir, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-I
----------------------------
08/Dated: 05th January, 2026
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 23.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6003 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the decision so taken by the authority as contained in letter no. 1395 dated 14.07.2016 passed by the Town Planner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation has been refused to be interfered with.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the memo of appeal as has been enumerated as per the pleading made in the writ petition requires to be enumerated, which is as under:
Page | 1 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] The appellant and his niece Suprabha Rani w/o Anil Kumar jointly acquired a piece of land measuring an area of 9 Kathas equivalent to 6480 Sq.ft. appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 1621 under R.S. Khata No. 372 in Mouza-Argora corresponding to Municipal Holding No.2236/A29/B in Ward No.37 by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 09.10.2011. The appellant has been paying Holding Tax in Ranchi Municipal Corporation in respect of the lands-in-question.
As per the existing master plan in 2013, land use zone of lands- in-question was marked for residential buildings but there was a provision regarding use of different land use zone as given in Para-18.4 of "The Amendments in The Ranchi Planning Standards & Building Byelaws 2002 (Published in 2006)".
Under aforesaid provisions, on 18.05.2013, the appellant made an application for the approval of commercial building plan in prescribed form and in prescribed manner and he deposited Rs.71,416.00 as the processing fee for building plan approval. The aforesaid application of the appellant for building plan approval was registered as BP02/2013/518.
By letter No.8513 dated 21.11.2013, the respondent No.3 granted 15 days' time to submit application under Appendix 'M' for "Land use change".
On 11.12.2013, permission for Appendix-M was granted by the respondent no.2 thereafter by letter No.9082 dated 20.02.2014, the respondent No.3 granted 15 days' time to submit revised map. Accordingly, on 03.03.2014, the appellant submitted rectified Map as per direction contained in letter No. 9082 dated 20.02.2014.
By letter No. 389 dated 16.06.2014, the respondent No.4 requested the State Fire Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi to submit his comment with regard to application made by the petitioner thereafter by letter No. 442 dated 17.11.2014, the State Fire Officer (In-charge), Jharkhand, Ranchi submitted its Comment with a request to the respondent No.4 to send the Plan showing active and passive Fire Protection as per Rules.
Page | 2 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] In response of aforesaid request regarding the Plan showing active and passive Fire, on 25.05.2015, the respondent No.4 sent a letter No. 1358 along with the plan showing active and passive Fire to the Additional State Fire Officer (In-charge). On 10.08.2015, the Additional State Fire Officer (In-charge), Jharkhand, Ranchi furnished a report vide letter no. 376 to the respondent No.4.
It is the case of the appellant that instead of fulfillment of all the criterions, the concerned respondents did not take any step for issuance of Sanction Building Plan, as such, the petitioner made an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, by a letter No: 1975 dated 27.05.2015, the Public Information Officer-cum- Dy. Town Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi provided information to the effect that after receipt of objection from the State Fire Officer vide letter No. 442 dated 17.11.2014, the File has been sent to the Town Planner for further steps, but due to stay of sanction plan, no process is being done. However, such ban was lifted by office order issued under letter No. 946 dated 16.03.2015 and letter No. 1609 dated 01.05.2015 and therefore, the process is being taken for disposal of the file relating to BP 02/2013/1518.
By letter No. 970 dated 26.05.2016, the Additional State Fire Officer, Jharkhand, Ranchi furnished information regarding grant of report. Further, by letter No.2541 dated 15.07.2016, the Public Information Officer-cum- Assistant Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi furnished information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was intimated that on 18.05.2013, the petitioner submitted an application for Building Plan and after verification of the title of the lands, record was sent to the Law Section on 27.05.2013 and thereafter, it was sent for technical verification to the Junior Engineer on 28.05.2013 who submitted his report through the Assistant Engineer on 07.06.2013 and it has also been intimated that the petitioner made proposal for commercial Building Plant in terms of Appendix-"M" and his application was forwarded to the respondent No.4 and ultimately, Check Slip was prepared for sanction on 17.05.2014.
Page | 3 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] Subsequently, the Town Planner sent the Documents to the State Fire Officer for report on 16.06.2014 and ultimately, no objection certificate was received from the Fire Officer on 27.11.2014 and then the file was placed before the Town Planner on 30.12.2014 and reminder was sent to the Town Planner on 20.05.2015. Such information clearly goes to show that the process for Building Plan was complete by 11.08.2015, still no Building Plan was issued to the petitioner.
Thereafter, by the impugned letter No.1395 dated 14.07.2016 (Annexure-7), the respondent No.3 declined to sanction the Building Plan No. BP02/2013/518 for the purpose of commercial use due to the reason that "New Master Plan" was implemented w.e.f. 29.11.2015. Instead of fulfillment of all the criterions, the concerned respondents did not take any step for issuance of Sanction Building Plan of the appellant although 77 (seventy-seven) building plans were approved/sanctioned between 11.08.15 and 29.11.15 as would be evident from letter no.4104 dated 26.11.16 received under RTI Act-2005.
By the letter no.2730 dated 02.11.2016, the respondent No.4 reminded regarding submission of revised building map and directed to submit revised building map for residential building within 15 days thereafter by a letter dated 09.11.2016, the appellant submitted the revised map for residential building.
During pendency of this writ application and in compliance of the direction as contained in letter No.421 dated 04.05.2016, the Petitioner also submitted modified plan within the prescribed time. Even the modified plan submitted by the appellant in terms of letter No.421 dated 04.05.2016 but the same has not been sanctioned and no final order has been passed.
Thereafter, the appellant being aggrieved with the same, has preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6003 of 2016 before this Court but the said writ petition had been dismissed which has been challenged by filing the present appeal.
Page | 4 [2026:JHHC:86-DB]
3. It is evident from the aforesaid factual aspect that the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted an application for approval of his building plan on fulfilling entire criteria as per the instructions/proposal made by the Town Planner, but the sanction of the building plan has been rejected for the purpose of construction of commercial building.
4. Further, it is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that the application which has been submitted as per the bye-laws which was in vogue in 2002, was for the purpose of construction of commercial building. Further, the area where the building has been allowed to be constructed has been shown to be residential area and as such, as per the requirement of use of land, necessary process has been followed by making special appeal as required to be made in view of the provision of Clause 18.4 of the Bye-Laws which contains an appendix being Appendix-M which has been provided for the purpose of uses in Land Use Zones. The special appeal has been allowed by the competent authority vide order dated 11.12.2013 having been decision so taken by the Chief Executive Officer.
5. It is the further case of the appellant/writ petitioner that subsequent thereto, the fire-fighting certificate has also been submitted by issuance of No Objection Certificate in this regard way back on 07.06.2014 as contained in Letter No. 389 dated 16.06.2014. But even after completion of all the processes which was found to be in order, the application has been rejected in the pretext of the fact that in the meanwhile, the New Master Plan was implemented w.e.f. 29.11.2015 wherein the land use change criteria have been modified.
6. The said order has been challenged by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6003 of 2016, however, no counter affidavit was invited but on the basis of the oral submission advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the respondent-RMC, wherein serious opposition has been made that in view of coming into effect of the new master plan, the application which was lying pending with the authority has lost its force.
7. The learned Single Judge has agreed with such opposition and has dismissed the writ petition against which the present appeal has been preferred.
Page | 5 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] Submission on behalf of the Appellant:
8. The party-in-person has preferred the present appeal and has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order:
(i) The core issue herein is the conversion of the land use, i.e., as per the proposed map, 6 storey building was to be sanctioned out of which 3 storey was proposed to be used for commercial purpose and rest 3 storey for the residential purpose. It is the case of the appellant/writ petitioner that since the area is having residential plots only, as such, for the purpose of getting the due permission from the competent authority, a special appeal was preferred in view of the provision as provided in Clause 18.4 of the bye-laws which contains due format as under Appendix-M. The said proposal was finally approved by the Chief Executive Officer/Administrator of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation vide decision so taken vide order dated 11.12.2013.
(ii) The contention of the appellant/writ petitioner is that the moment the Chief Executive Officer, RMC has approved the conversion of land for the purpose of part commercial construction over the land in question, hence, coming out with the reason of rejection that due to coming into effect of the new master plan the application has become redundant is nothing but an erroneous reason since after the decision taken on Appendix M, the same has attained its finality and as such, a right has been accrued in his favour and irrespective of the fact that a new master plan has come into being, the application cannot be said to be redundant.
(iii) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter rather has gone into the fact of having no subsisting right even though the decision to convert part of the land from absolute residential construction to that of part commercial construction and while rejecting the same, reason has been assigned that the question plot comes under the residential zone is absolutely incorrect.
Page | 6 [2026:JHHC:86-DB]
9. The party-in-person, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Single Judge since has not considered all these aspects of the matter, hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is fit to be interfered with, as such, the same may be quashed and set aside.
Submission on behalf of the Respondent:
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Ranchi Municipal Corporation, has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order:
(i) It has been submitted that the moment the new master plan has come into being, the appellant will have no subsisting right due to change in master plan and by the new master plan, different criteria has been inserted and as such, it is not a case where any right will be said to be accrued in favour of the appellant.
(ii) Further, it has been submitted that since the question plot comes under the residential zone where commercial construction is prohibited, as such, the said order cannot be said to suffer from error.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that, therefore, the impugned order needs no interference.
Analysis:
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the memo of appeal as also the finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order.
13. The question which requires consideration herein which this Court has gathered from the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties are:
(i) Whether after the decision having been taken by the Chief Executive Officer, the competent authority, of the concerned Urban Local Body regarding the conversion of land vide order dated 11.12.2013, can be said to be a right said to be vested in favour of the appellant having no effect after change in the bye-laws.
(ii) Whether the decision so taken by the Town Planner, the impugned order dated 14.07.2016 can be said to suffer from jurisdictional Page | 7 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] error since the town planner is having no jurisdiction rather the jurisdiction as per the 2002 bye-laws or even new bye-laws of 2016 is conferred upon the Chief Executive Officer/Administrator of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the decision so taken by the Town Planner rejecting the application lying pending ignoring the decision taken by the Chief Executive Officer as per Appendix M vide decision dated 11.12.2013, thereby, the Town Planner has exceeded his jurisdiction by sitting upon the decision so taken by the Chief Executive Officer.
(iii) Whether the finding so recorded by the learned Single Judge that the question plot comes under the residential zone where the construction of commercial building is prohibited can be said to be proper in view of the provision already available in Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws, 2016 as available in Clause 29 under the caption head of "Different use of land" which contains different provisions as under Clause 29.2 and 29.6 read with tabular chart as available in Table-4 which contains reference of "Commercial/Business Offices" under serial no.21 where the commercial construction is permissible.
14. Since all the issues are interlinked, as such, they are being taken into consideration together.
15. This Court, before answering the said issues, needs to refer herein certain relevant facts that the application was preferred on behalf of the applicant/appellant for the purpose of sanction of building plan up to 6 storey building out of which 3 storey was proposed for commercial use and rest 3 was proposed for residential use. The day when the said application was made, the bye-laws of 2002 was available since it was formulated under the Bihar Regional Development Authority Act.
16. The provision has been made therein for conversion of the land if the construction is to be carried of commercial in nature also along with residential one. The same has been provided under clause 18.4 which contains Appendix M which is to be invoked by filing a special appeal Page | 8 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] before the competent authority, i.e., the Chief Executive Officer. For ready reference, Appendix M is being referred as under:
Appendix 'M' Provision Regarding Uses in Land Use Zones (Bye-law No. 18.4) Land Use Zone Uses permitted Uses permissible the Authority appeal.
if allowed by after special 1 2 3 A. Residential 1. Residences, Hostels and 1. Places of worship Boarding Houses with density Limitations, 2. Professional, Commercial
2. Nursery, Kinder garden and and Government Offices. High Schools
3. Service uses and retail shops of a neighbourhood character when located in
3.Clinics, Social and cultural local shopping centres or in institution with adequate concentrated locations or as parking facilities. shown in the Zonal Deve-
lopmant plan of the areas when prepared.
4. Hotels, hospitals and sani-
toria not treating ing contag-
ious diseases of mental patients, provided the set-
4. Retail shopping and back and coverage of plots community facilities with are such as not to constitute adequate parking facilities. nuisance to the residential area.
5. Non-commercial poultry and cattle farms provided that a part of such building is not such that 50 ft. away
5. Neighbourhood recreational from a dwelling or property uses including club and others line.
such public recreational facilities with adequate 6. Institutions of higher parking facilities. learning.
7. Bus depots, railway passen-ger and freight station.
8. Petrol filling Stations on road of 90 ft. width and above.
9. Service and storage yard, taxi and scooter stands.
Page | 9 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] B. Commercial 1. Retail shops and markets 1. Social and welfare institu-
(Retail) tions
2. Business and professional 2. Petrol filling stations and
Offices. garages with adequate set-
back and coverage so that
there is no nuisance crea-ted
to the locality.
3. Service uses shops like 3. Coal, Wood or Timber
barbers, tailors, laundary yard.
cleaners etc.
4. Restaurants and places of 4. Light manufacturing units
entertainment with adequate employing not more than 4
parking places. persons with or without
power provided the goods
manufactured are sold on
the premises in retail and
that does not create
nuisance or hazard.
5. Residences, Hostels and 5. Taxi and Scooter stand,
Boarding Houses and Social Bus Terminal (Parking areas
and welfare institu-tions requirements for all the
provided they are located in above uses must be
the first and higher floors. approved).
6. Meat, Fish, Vegetable and
fruit markets.
7. Roofed storage for
legitimate retail business.
8. Public and semi-public-
recreational discos.
9. Public utilities and buil-
dings. (Parking area
requirements for all these
uses must be approved).
C. Commercial 1. Truck terminals and par- (Whole sale) 1. Wholesale and retail shops king.
2. Storage for wholesale uses 2. Market, Clinic, Social and except when specifically Cultural institutions. prohibited.
3. Dwelling for watch-and-
3. Commercial and ward. (Parking, loading & Government Offices. unloading requirements must be approved for all the above uses).
4. Restaurants, and residences provided they are located in first and higher floors.
5. Public utilities and buildings. (Parking, loading and unloading require-ments must be approved for all the above uses).
Page | 10 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] D. Industrial 1. Industries which do not 1. Bus and Truck Terminal.
cause excessive, injurious or 2. Railway passenger and obnoxious noise, vib-ration, frei-ght terminal. smokes gas, flames, odour, dust, effluent or other 3. Petrol filling Station, Taxis objectionable conditions and and Scooter stands, junk do not employ more than 100 yards.
workers. (Parking, loading and unloading requirements must 4. Dwellings for watch and be approved for all uses). ward staff, canteen and recreational facilities for the employees.
E. Public and semi- 1. Local, State and Central 1. Residences and other uses public uses. Government Offices and use incidental to main use in no of land for defence purposes. way causing any nuisance or hazard.
2. Social and cultural
2. Outdoor theatres and institutions.
drive-in-cinemas.
3. Radio, Transmitters and Wireless Stations subject to 3. Restaurants and selling of height and density eatables.
restrictions.
4. Educational, Medical and 4. Uses clearly incidental to research institution. recreational use which will not create nuisance or hazard.
5. Social and cultural insti- 5. Dwelling for watch and tutions. ward staff. (Parking area requirem-ents for all uses must be approved).
6. Monuments and religious institutions.
7. Public utilities and buildings.
8. Cremation grounds and cemetries.
9. Bus and Railways passenger terminals.
10. Parks, play-grounds and special recreational areas (Parking area requirements for all these uses must be approved).
F. Agricultural 1. Agricultural and 1. Places of worship.
horticulture.
2. Dairy and Poultry farming 2. Special educational and cultural buildings.
3. Farm houses and accessary
3. Parks and non-commercial buildings of appropriate and semi-public, recreational specification.
uses.
4. Brick Kilns.
4. Storage and processing & Page | 11 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] (Parking area requirement for sale of farm product. all these uses must be approved). 5. Service and repair of farm-
implements.
6. Public utility and buildings.
(Parking area requirement for all these uses must be approved).
17. It is the admitted case as would be evident that the special appeal was preferred before the competent authority and after getting the report, the competent authority has approved the conversion of land as per the decision so taken on 11.12.2013. The matter remained pending for one reason or the other and even though the NOC was transmitted by the Fire Fighting Department but even then, no decision was taken. In the meanwhile, the Jharkhand Building Byes-Laws 2016 has come into being after coming into effect of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011. The pari materia provision has been made as under clause 29 at par with the provision as contained in clause 18.4 which contains Appendix M under the caption head "Different use of land". For ready reference, Clause 29 of the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws 2016 along with Table 4 is being referred as under:
"29. Different use of land.-
29.1 Permission for different uses shall be accorded outright for principal use earmarked in the different zones described in column (2) of table No 4. 29.2 Permission for different uses described in column-3 of the Table-4 shall be permitted on special consideration and approval of Authority and reasons for such consideration shall be recorded in writing. 29.3 The purposes specified in column (4) of the said Table shall not be permitted in the areas reserved for particular uses. 29.4 Residential buildings and others buildings may be permitted in the Urban Agriculture use zone if the following conditions are satisfied along with other conditions of these bye laws:
29.4.1 The land is not a leasehold land;
29.4.2 The coverage is not more than 20%;
29.4.2 The height is not more than 7.0 (seven) meters; and at least 60% of land is used for plantation/agriculture;
29.5 Projects of planned Township Development or Group Housing may be allowed in Urban Agriculture Zone by the authority. Such type of permission shall be accorded by the Authority with the approval of the Urban Development and Housing Department, Jharkhand.
Page | 12 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] 29.6 Mixed land use may be permitted in a particular zone on approval by Authority. However, the main use shall cover not less than 2/3rd of the total floor area and the ancillary use shall not exceed 1/3rd of the total floor area. 29.7 Appeals with respect to the above provisions shall lie with the tribunal. 29.8 In case of Government and Government Sponsored projects, the Urban Development and Housing Department may relax the land use criteria mentioned in table 4.
29.9 Where Development Plan/Master Plan has not been finalized for any Authority, guidelines for classification of land use shall be issued by Urban Development and Housing Department on the basis of proposal submission by the Authority. This shall be mandatory after enforcement of this Bye-laws.
Table 4: Land use permitted/prohibited in different use Zones Sl. Land Users Use Zones in which permitted R C I P T G E CUI CUII A 1 Airport, Helipad, Flying Club • • 2 Art gallery, museum, exhibition centre • • • • • 3 Auto Supply store and Show room for motor vehicle and machinery • • • • 4 Automobile service and repairing station • • 5 Bank and Safe deposit vault • • • • • • • 6 Bird Sanctuary • • 7 Boarding or lodging house • • • • • 8 Botanical garden • 9 Bus Depot • • • • 10 Bus Terminal • • 11 Canteen and eating house serving the industries • • 12 Cemetery, crematorium, burial ground, electric crematorium • • 13 Children Traffic Park • • 14 Cinema • • • • • 15 Clinic for pets • • • • • • 16 Clinical Laboratory • • • • • 17 Club house not conducted primarily as business • • • • • • 18 Club house or other recreational activities conducted as business • • • 19 Cold storage and ice factory • • 20 College • • • 21 Commercial/business Offices • • • • 22 Community hall & welfare centre, • • • • • • 23 Centractor plant and storage for building material • • 24 Convenience Shopping Center • • • • • • • 25 Convention Centre • • • • Page | 13 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] 26 Cottage, Handloom and Household Industries • • • • • 27 Court • • • 28 Crèche and Day Care Centre • • • • • • 29 Cultural and Information Center • • • • 30 Customary home occupation • • • • 31 Defence • • • • • • • 32 Dairy and poultry industry • • 33 Dispensary • • • • • • 34 Dry Cleaners-cleaning and dyeing • • • • 35 Educational and research institution • • • • • • 36 Electric Sub-station • • • • • • • • • 37 Existing Village • • • • • • • • • • 38 Fair Ground • • • 39 Film studio • 40 Fish curing • • • 41 Flatted Group Industry • • • • 42 Flood control work • • • • • • • • • • 43 Forensic Science Laboratory • • • 44 Forest • • • 45 Gas Godown • • • • • 46 General Industries • • 47 Golf course • 48 Green house • • • • • • 49 Gymnasium • • • • • • 50 Health Centre • • • • • • 51 Hospital • • • • • • 52 Hostels for educational institution • • • • • 53 Hotel • • • • 54 Indoor Games Hall • • • • • • • 55 Jail • 56 Junk yard • 57 Local, Municipal, State or Central Government office • • • • • • • 58 Mechanical workshop with lathes, drills, grinders, spot welding set • • 59 Medical, eye and dental practitioners' clinic • • • • • • 60 Monument • • • • • • • • • • 61 Motor Driving Training Center • • • • • 62 Municipal facility (as listed in Annex VII) • • • • • • • 63 Music, dance, drama training centre • • • • • Page | 14 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] 64 Neighbourhood Shopping Centre-convenience and local shopping with vegetables, fruits, flowers, fish and meat • • • • 65 Night Shelter • • • • • • • 66 Nursery, Horticulture and Orchards • • • • • • • • • 67 Nursing Home • • • • • • 68 Oil Depot • • • 69 Open Air Theatre • • • • • • 70 Orphanage • • • • • 71 Park, play ground, playfield and recreational area • • • • • • • 72 Personal Service Shop • • • • • • • 73 Petrol filling station • • • • • • • 74 Photograph studio and laboratory • • • • • • 75 Piggery • • 76 Planetarium • • • • • 77 Police Headquarter and Police Lines • 78 Police Station, Out Post and Fire Station • • • • • • • 79 Post office, Telephone Exchange, Telegraph Offices • • • • • • • 80 Professional office of a resident of the premise • • • • 81 Public library • • • • • • 82 Radio broadcasting studio • • • 83 Railway Station • • • 84 Reformatory (Juvenile Home) • • • 85 Refinery • 86 Religious Place like temple, Namghar, Sarna Sathal, mosque, church etc • • • • • • 87 Research and Development Centre • • • 88 Residence cum Work Plot • • • • 89 Residential Dwelling • • • • • • 90 Residential Plot-plotted Housing • • • • 91 Restaurant, cafeteria, milk bar • • • • • • • • 92 Retail shop • • • • • • • 93 Satellite and Telecommunication Center • • • 94 Schools • • • • • 95 Service Centre • • • • • • 96 Sewerage treatment plant • • • 97 Social, cultural and religious institution • • • • • 98 Specialised Park/Ground • • • • • Page | 15 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] 99 Sports Training Center • • • • 100 Stadium • 101 Storage of petroleum and other inflammable materials • • 102 Storage, Warehouses and Godown • • • • 103 Swimming Pool • • • • • • 104 Taxi stand and bus stand, cycle and rickshaw stand • • • • • • • • 105 Theatre, assembly or concert hall, dance and music hall and such other place of entertainment, • • • • • 106 Truck terminal • • • 107 Vending Booth • • • • • • • 108 Vocational Training/Technical Training Institute • • • • • 109 Watchmen or caretaker's lodges • • • • • • • 110 Water Treatment Plant • • • • • • • 111 Weekly Market/informal Sector Unit • • • • • • 112 Wholesale Trade • 113 Wireless transmitting and weather station, Transmission Tower • • • 114 Zoological park •
18. It is evident as per the aforesaid provision, particularly 29.2 and 29.6 that on special consideration the use of the land can be changed and further the same is being fortified as under serial no.21 of Table 4 where in an area, the land can be allowed to be used for commercial/business offices also.
19. It is thus evident that although the bye-laws 2016 has come but there is no departure so far as different use of land is concerned from the old bye- laws of the year 2002 formulated under the provision of Regional Development Authority Act rather the pari materia provision has been made out also in the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws 2016 as under clause 29 as is being referred hereinabove.
20. Although absolute restriction has been shown as under serial no.21 of table 4 in carrying out the construction of commercial building but the question herein is that even accepting that there is absolute bar but once the decision has been taken by the competent authority under Appendix M as per the decision so taken on 11.12.2013 then will it not be said to be Page | 16 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] accrual of right that too even after the said decision has been taken, no final decision has been taken by the authority rather they have waited for coming into effect of the new bye-laws and by that time, the application was submitted on behalf of the appellant, the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 has come into being.
21. The question is that the writ petitioner has already got the approval for the conversion of the land from residential use to that of commercial use as per the proposal submitted before the competent authority. Further, the reference is required to be made emphatically at the present juncture of Clause 29.6 of the bye-laws 2016 wherein provision has been made of mixed land use which may be permitted in a particular zone on approval by authority, however, the main use shall cover not less than 2/3rd of the total floor area and the ancillary use shall not exceed 1/3rd of the total floor area.
22. The impugned order has been passed by the functionary, i.e., by the Town Planner on 14.07.2016 merely by making reference of Clause 21. As per the admitted case of the parties which has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the proposal which was submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner was for mixed land use and as such, consideration ought to have been given as per the provision as under
Clause 29.6 not under Clause 21 wherein complete restriction has been provided for commercial use of the land.
23. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that while passing the impugned decision by making reference of the land use to be used has been shown at serial no.21 of Table 4 of bye-laws 2016 wherein it has specifically been mentioned as has been taken note in the impugned order that in the residential area, commercial building cannot be constructed but the authority while taking such decision has not gone through the entire application made on behalf of the appellant, i.e., the application was submitted for construction of part commercial building, i.e., up to 3rd floor for commercial use and rest 3 floor for residential use which is to be dealt with as per Clause 29.6 of the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws 2016.
Page | 17 [2026:JHHC:86-DB]
24. Further, this Court is of the view that when the provision has been made at Clause 29.6, without going into the application submitted by the appellant, the pari materia provision has already been made under Appendix M of Clause 18.4, then no aid is to be taken on behalf of the respondent-RMC in denying the application for sanction of map as proposed.
25. This Court has also considered the provision as contained in Clause 84 which provides the repeal and saving clause. For ready reference, the said clause is being referred as under:
"84. Repeal and Savings 84.1 The Jharkhand Planning Standards and Building Bye-Laws 2002 with all its amendments, any other building byelaws framed under Mineral Area Development Authority Act Industrial Area Development Authority Act and associated executive orders are hereby repealed. 84.2 Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the bye laws so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under these bye laws."
26. It is evident from clause 84.1 that the same speaks with respect to the repealment of the earlier bye-laws of the year 2002 while by maintaining the mandate of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, separate provision has been made under Clause 84.2 wherein it has been provided that notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken under the bye laws so repealed shall be deemed to have been done or taken under these bye laws meaning thereby, the Clause 84.2 is a saving clause and the act which has been done or any decision which has been taken will be saved.
27. The question would be that after the sanction of the appendix M by the competent authority, will it not be said to be accrual of right since the same is to be taken as a decision so taken by the competent authority so far as the issue of conversion of the land is concerned by approving or sanctioning the Appendix M vide order dated 11.12.2013.
28. Before consideration of the aforesaid issue, this Court deems it fit and proper to refer certain legal position regarding the accrued/vested right and at what stage and how the same be done away. But before referring to the aforesaid judgment, it requires to refer the definition/meaning of vested/accrued right.
Page | 18 [2026:JHHC:86-DB]
29. Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute vested rights.
30. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at page1397, the word 'vested' is defined as a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right, vested interest.
The word 'vested' is normally used where an immediate fixed right in present or future enjoyment in respect of a property is created. With the long usage the said word 'vest' has also acquired a meaning as "an absolute or indefeasible right". It had a 'legitimate' or "settled expectation"
to obtain right to enjoy the property etc. Such "settled expectation" can be rendered impossible of fulfilment due to change in law by the legislature. Besides this, such a "settled expectation" or the so-called "vested right"
cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the law.
Thus, "vested right" is a right independent of any contingency. Such a right can arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law. A vested right can be taken away only if the law specifically or by necessary implication provide for such a course.
In the light of the definition of the "vested right", it is evident that right accrues to person or persons attached to an institution or building or anything whatsoever, meaning thereby, if an incumbent is claiming a vested right, he is to substantiate before the court of law that the right has been created in his favour by an order passed by the competent authority in accordance with law.
It is evident from the definition of the vested right that right would be said to be vested right, permanent and continuous in nature and if that be so, the question of prejudice or following of principles of natural justice will arise.
Page | 19 [2026:JHHC:86-DB]
31. The settled position of law is that once the right has been accrued, the subsequent rule framed carving out the eligibility criteria will not be considered to be a reason to recall the benefit already granted due to the reason that a vested right has been created. Here, it is relevant to refer the definition of vested right as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in MGB Gramin Bank v. Chakrawarti Singh [(2014) 13 SCC 583] at paragraph 11, 12 and 13, which read hereunder as:-
"11. The word "vested" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) at p. 1563, as:
"Vested.--fixed; accrued; settled; absolute; complete. Having the character or given in the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. Rights are 'vested' when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become property of some particular person or persons as present interest; mere expectancy of future benefits, or contingent interest inproperty founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not constitute 'vested rights'."
12. In Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary (International Edition) at p. 1397, "vested" is defined as law held by a tenure subject to no contingency; complete; established by law as a permanent right; vested interest.
13. Thus, vested right is a right independent of any contingency and it cannot be taken away without consent of the person concerned. Vested right can arise from contract, statute or by operation of law. Unless an accrued or vested right has been derived by a party, the policy decision/scheme could be changed."
32. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the moment the competent authority has sanctioned the conversion of land by taking decision on Appendix M on special appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant as per the provision made in the bye-laws available at that time, then, it is incorrect on the part of the respondent to take the ground that due to coming into effect of the new bye-laws, the right which has been accrued by according approval of conversion of land will be taken away.
33. If such plea will be accepted, then, the provision of Clause 84.2 will become redundant and that will be contrary to the spirit of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.
34. Otherwise also, a wrong doer cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court while passing an order in this case has called upon the RMC to explain the conduct of not doing anything from the date of receipt of the application of the appellant till 29.11.2015 as would be evident from the order dated 23.06.2025. The Page | 20 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] counter affidavit has been filed in pursuance of the said order but no such explanation was furnished.
35. The law is well settled that a wrong doer cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447 wherein it has been held that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong. For ready reference paragraphs 15 and 16 are being quoted hereunder as:--
"15. In Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav [(1996) 4 SCC 127] the accused army personnel himself was responsible for delay as he escaped from detention. Then he raised an objection against initiation of proceedings on the ground that such proceedings ought to have been initiated within six months under the Army Act, 1950. Referring to the above maxim, this Court held that the accused could not take undue advantage of his own wrong. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act, the Court held that presence of the accused was an essential condition for the commencement of trial and when the accused did not make himself available, he could not be allowed to raise a contention that proceedings were time barred. This Court (at SCC p. 142, para 28) referred to Broom's Legal Maxims (10th Edn.), p. 191 wherein it was stated:"It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure."
16. It is settled principle of law that a man cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of his own wrong to gain favourable interpretation of law. It is sound principle that he who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance he has occasioned. To put it differently, "a wrongdoer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own wrong".
36. Similar view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (Dead) through legal representatives, (2018) 3 SCC 412 at paragraph 143 which is being quoted hereunder as:
"143. When once the court has restrained the State authorities to take possession, or to maintain status quo they cannot pay the amount or do anything further, as such the consequences of interim orders cannot be used against the State. It is basic principle that when a party is disabled to perform a duty and it is not possible for him to perform a duty, is a Page | 21 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] good excuse. It is a settled proposition that one cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The doctrine commodum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet means convenience cannot accrue to a party from his own wrong. No person ought to have advantage of his own wrong. A litigant may be right or wrong. Normally merit of lis is to be seen on date of institution. One cannot be permitted to obtain unjust injunction or stay orders and take advantage of own actions. Law intends to give redress to the just causes; at the same time, it is not its policy to foment litigation and enable to reap the fruits owing to the delay caused by unscrupulous persons by their own actions by misusing the process of law and dilatory tactics."
37. Further, the appellant has made specific pleading regarding the sanction of the map of 77 building plans between August 2015 and November 2015 but there is no denial of the aforesaid fact that the building plan of the appellant/petitioner was not sanctioned during the relevant time which is lackadaisical approach of the authority concerned and due to that the interest of the appellant has seriously been jeopardized and he is running from pillar to post since the year 2013 from the date of application and even to this Court since 2016 which has already crossed more than 12 years.
38. Further consideration has been made by this Court regarding the authority of the Town Planner who has taken the final decision. Such decision was taken on the strength of Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act.
39. We have posed a specific question to the learned counsel for the respondent-RMC that under which provision, the Town Planner has been conferred with the jurisdiction to take final decision. The learned counsel for the respondent-RMC is fair enough to admit the fact that there is no provision under the Act, 2011 rather the power has been conferred upon the Municipal Commissioner or the Chief Executive Officer as provided under Section 427 and 429 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011.For ready reference, the said provisions are being referred as under:
"427. Sanction of building plan -
(1) No person shall construct, or commence to construct any building or any structure of a permanent nature or execute any work relating to construction of building or undertake any alteration, addition or modification of an existing building, unless the building plan is approved by a licensed architect:
(2) Individual residential building plan on an area of a plot upto 500 Sq.mtr. shall be approved by the Licensed Architect/Post Graduate Civil Engineer. The State Government shall finalize the procedure and rules for this purpose from time to time. (3) The Building plans under the ULB except Page | 22 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] those mentioned in sub-para-2 of section 427, shall be approved by the ULB as done before commencement of this Act.
Provided that no Licensed Architect shall approve any building plan unless it is in conformity with building regulations framed by the State Government/ municipality and Master Plan with requisite fee as per building bye-laws to be deposited through bank draft in the ULB.
Provided further that any Licensed Architect, who is found to have approved a building plan in contravention or in deviation of building regulations, shall be liable to pay fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees or sentence to imprisonment for a period which may extend to one year, or both as prescribed by the state government from time to time. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the municipality shall also, as prescribed by the State Government, have the authority to sanction the building plan as in case of section 427(2). (5) Any person who earns as a proprietor or colonizer to establish colony or constructs or gets constructed building as a building contractor or who working as colonizer or building contractor or gets constructed buildings or flats for transfer by sale or otherwise, under a public or Government institution, municipality and development area, shall develop the colony under the provision of this Act as rules and bye-laws framed for this purpose on the following conditions:-
(a) Earmarking of land for urban poor in Plotted Development Scheme:-
(i) In all plotted development schemes of area above one hectare (10,000 sqm) not less than 10% of the gross land (which should not be less than 20% of developed land) area shall be earmarked for economically weaker sections and low income groups. Provided that where the total area of land is between 4000 to 10,000 sqm, either land may be reserved for EWS & LIG or shelter fee as prescribed by the appropriate government, shall be collected as the case may be.
(ii) All plotted development schemes of area below 4000 sqm may be exempted from reservation of land as well as payment of shelter fee.
(iii) The size of the plot reserved for EWS and LIG shall not be less than 30 sqm and 40 sqm respectively and not exceed 48 sqm.
(b) Earmarking of FAR for urban poor in Group Housing Schemes:-
(i) In all group housing schemes of total plot area of 3000 sqm and above, reservation to the extent of 15% of permissible FAR or 35% of the total dwelling units, whichever is higher shall be provided.
(ii) All group housing schemes with plot area below 3000 sqm may be exempted from reservation of floor area as well as payment of shelter fee.
(iii) The carpet area of the dwelling unit reserved for EWS shall not be less than 25 sqm and for LIG it should not be more than 48 sqm (as per Affordable Housing Guidelines) or as prescribed by the appropriate Government.
(c) Identification of Eligible Persons & Determination of Cost of Land/Houses:-
(i) A government department/agency of the appropriate Government shall maintain an inventory of all the plots or houses as the case may be reserved for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and the Low Income Groups (LIG) and ensure its protection from encroachment.
(ii) For the allotment of plots or houses to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and the Low Income Group (LIG), the procedure for the selection of eligible persons and the determination of the cost of such Page | 23 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] plots or houses shall be such as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government.
(d) Incentives to Developers:-
Every developer who makes provision for earmarking of land or floor area as the case may be for EWS and LIG housing shall be incentivized as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government and may include relaxation of density norms, land use concessions through conversion of part of residential use for commercial use, higher Floor Area Ratio, Transferable Development Right, etc. and/or cross-subsidization.
(e) Non-residential Development:-
The appropriate government shall consider levy of suitable fee e.g. impact fee on all non-residential land development/buildings above 1000 sqm to generate resources for the shelter fund which ma y be used for provision of land, housing, basic service etc. to the urban poor.
(f) Limitation of Shelter Fee:-
The Shelter Fee so collected shall be maintained in a separate account and be utilized as per guidelines for the acquisition of land, development of land and construction of houses and in such other ways so as to provide housing for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Low Income Groups (LIG).
429. Building plan approved by Licensed Architect to be submitted to Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer -
(1) Every Licensed Architect, who approves a map of individual residential building plan on a plot upto 500 Sq.mtr shall within fifteen days from approving the plan submit details of construction plan along with approval granted by him to the Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer. (2) On receipt of approved building plan from the Licensed Architect, the Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer may inquire and verify and satisfy himself that the building construction plan conforms to building regulation and other parameters required under building bye-laws framed under this Act and if it is found non confirming to building bye-laws, it would be liable for necessary action by the ULB, that includes cancellation of the approval given by the Architect.
(3) If Municipal Commissioner or the Executive Officer, on such inquiry or verification finds that the building or structure of permanent nature construction plan has been approved by the Licensed Architect in contravention, breach or deviation of building regulation, Fire safety standard norm, standard of Master Plan or other parameters under this Act, he shall immediately stop construction work and proceed to take action against owner, occupier or any person responsible for construction of such building in contravention, breach or deviation of building regulation and other parameter and shall also proceed to take action against the Licensed Architect, who approved such building construction plan."
40. It is evident that the Town Planner is having no jurisdiction under the statutory command, i.e., Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and as such, the decision so taken by the Town Planner is also without jurisdiction.
41. We, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, have answered all the issues and after having answered all the issues, is adverting to the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge wherefrom it is Page | 24 [2026:JHHC:86-DB] evident from paragraph-5 onwards that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the fact which has been found to be undisputed one, i.e., a new master plan has come into being in which the question plot comes under the residential zone where the construction of commercial building is prohibited but the learned Single Judge while coming to such conclusion has forgotten to consider Clause 29.6 of the Jharkhand Bye- Laws, 2016 wherein special provision has been made to deal with the application of conversion of land which is mixed one as has been referred hereinabove.
42. The learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact of accrual of right as per the approval given by the Chief Executive Officer vide order dated 11.12.2013.
43. This Court, in view of the above, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs interference.
44. Accordingly, the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6003 of 2016, is hereby, quashed and set aside.
45. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed.
46. Consequently, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6003 of 2016 stands allowed and the order passed by the authority dated 14.07.2016 also stands quashed and set aside.
47. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
48. The matter is remitted to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation to take final decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in accordance with law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 05th January, 2026 Saurabh /A.F.R. Uploaded on: 13.01.2026 Page | 25