Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. Both sides have by and large stuck their guns before us. Appellant has reiterated that since there was a sub-division and amalgamation of plots in village abadi (Firni) which was found as a fact by three fact finding Forums below, provisions of Sections 312 and 313 providing for obtaining prior sanction of the lay out plan were automatically attracted and exemption Notification dated 24.8.63 did not exempt operation of Sections 312 and 313.

8. R-1 and 2 on the other hand maintained that once writ court had found that disputed construction was a single unit building complex with common foundation and a boundary wall involving no sub-division of plots, it had no choice but to fall in line with DB judgment in Regal Traders case (supra) which squarely covered the crux of the controversy between the parties by holding that Sections 312 and 313 were not attracted to such a case. Their counsel Mr.Singh has gone a step further to argue that where exemption notification exempted operation of Section 336 requiring prior sanction of building plans, it by implication exempted operation of Sections 312 and 313 because non-compliance of these provisions could only result in refusal of grant of building permission, and where such permission was not required at all, need to obtain prior sanction of lay out plan did not arise. He submitted that even if it was assumed that writ court was not competent to reverse finding of fact returned by forums below still these respondents were not required to obtain prior sanction of layout plan, once they were exempted from obtaining building permission under Section 336.

9. As it is parties are fighting it out on the self prescribed standard inviting application of Sections 312 and 313. Appellant believes that these provisions are attracted requiring obtaining sanction of a lay out plan as soon as the owner of a land utilises, sells or leases it out for construction of building/s thereon to provide, access and amenities to plots in which land is sub-divided or amalgamated. But R 1-2 contend that the provisions had no general application and would not be attracted where owner raised a single unit complex with common foundation and a boundary wall involving no sub-division of plots. Their further case is that once they were exempted from building regulations, they stand exempted from requirement of obtaining a sanction of layout plan also under Sections 312 and 313.

11. Chapter XVI of the Act provides for Building Regulations and under its Section 332, no person can commence or erect a building or execute any of the works specified in Section 334 without the Sanction of Commissioner which he is authorised to grant or refuse under S.336. One of the grounds on which such sanction can be refused includes cases falling under Section 312 and 313 where sanction of layout plea was not obtained.

12. All these provisions have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Chet Ram's case and by the DB in Regal Trader's case but both judgments do not cover some of the issues raging in this case. In Chet Ram's case Supreme Court only dealt with whether sanction of layout plan could be deemed granted if it was not so granted within 60 days prescribed under S.313(3). Similarly DB in Regal Traders case mostly focussed on the factual aspect to hold that Sections 312 and 313 were no applicable to single unit building complex involving no sub-division of plots.