Planning law compliance required for land-use conversion; sanction for restaurant use failed for non-conformity with mandatory zoning conditions.

Change of land use under the planning statute must strictly satisfy the conditions in the enabling provision and remain consistent with the Outline Development Plan and zoning regulations. Section 14-A applied only to limited corrections or changes justified by topographical or similar errors, public interest, and conformity with planning law. A residential plot could not be converted for restaurant use where the zoning regulations did not permit it and the sanction order did not show compliance with the statutory requirements or address relevant objections such as traffic and parking impact. An order passed without application of mind to mandatory planning requirements is vulnerable in judicial review, and the conversion permission was held invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether conversion of a residential site to commercial use for a restaurant could be sustained under the planning law, and whether the approval granted under Section 14-A was valid in the absence of the statutory conditions and conformity with the development plan and zoning regulations.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required all development and change of land use to conform to the Outline Development Plan and the approved zoning regulations. Section 14-A was introduced to deal with limited changes from the Outline Development Plan only where the change was necessitated by topographical or other errors and omissions, failure to fully indicate details, or circumstances prevailing at the relevant time, and even then only if the change served public interest and did not contravene the Act or other planning law. The record showed that use of a residential plot for a restaurant was not permissible under the zoning regulations, and the sanction order did not disclose how the statutory requirements of Section 14-A were satisfied. The authority had also failed to properly address the relevant planning objections, including the likely traffic and parking consequences. In judicial review, an order based on a wrong legal question or failure to consider relevant statutory requirements is vitiated.

Conclusion: The permission for conversion of the residential plot to commercial restaurant use was invalid, and the challenge succeeded in favour of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: A change of land use under the planning statute must strictly satisfy the conditions of the specific enabling provision and conform to the development plan and zoning regulations; a sanction granted without application of mind to those mandatory requirements is vitiated in judicial review.

---