TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: No Automatic Sanction for Delayed Plan Approval</h1> <h3>CHET RAM VASHIST Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.</h3> The Supreme Court clarified that the failure of the Standing Committee to consider an application for sanction to a lay-out plan within the specified ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the failure of the Standing Committee to consider an application for sanction to a lay-out plan within the specified period results in a 'deemed' grant of the sanction.2. The applicability of Section 313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, to revised lay-out plans.3. The interpretation of sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 313 regarding the time frame for the Standing Committee to act on the application.Summary:Issue 1: Deemed Grant of SanctionThe principal question raised is whether the failure of the Standing Committee to consider an application for sanction to a lay-out plan within the period specified in sub-s. (3) of s. 313, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, results in a 'deemed' grant of the sanction. The Supreme Court held that neither sub-s. (3) nor sub-s. (5) of s. 313 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 prescribes a standard of time within which it expects the Standing Committee to dispose of the matter. Non-compliance does not result in a deemed sanction to the lay-out plan.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 313 to Revised Lay-out PlansThe appellate Bench of the High Court held that the application does not lie under s. 313. However, the Supreme Court observed that the purpose of filing a lay-out plan under sub-s. (1) of s. 313 is related immediately to determining whether the access provided by the proposed private streets sufficiently and adequately serves the purpose enacted in s. 312. The Court held that it is open to the owner of land, after obtaining sanction to the original lay-out plan, to apply afresh for sanction to a revised lay-out plan. Such an application will fall under s. 313, and 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.Issue 3: Interpretation of Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 313The Supreme Court clarified that 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). The statute merely requires the Standing Committee to consider the application within sixty days, but it stops short of indicating what will be the result if the Standing Committee fails to do so. The Court emphasized that a right created by legal fiction is ordinarily the product of express legislation, and there is no express language in s. 313 creating the legal consequence claimed by the appellant.Conclusion:The Supreme Court directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to refer the application dated 20th April, 1967, along with the lay-out plan accompanying it, to its Standing Committee, which must dispose of the application expeditiously in accordance with law. The appellant is not entitled to any further relief at this stage, and the parties will bear their costs.
TaxTMI 
