Planning permission does not override municipal sanction rules or create vested rights against later development restrictions.

The town planning statute and the municipal building sanction regime were treated as operating in complementary fields, so planning permission did not dispense with compliance with municipal bye-laws, amended planning regulations, or a temporary freeze on development. A pending building plan application did not create a vested right or deemed sanction unless all statutory conditions were satisfied, and a delay-based deeming provision could not override returned plans, later zoning changes, or valid public-interest restrictions. The prevailing statutory and regulatory regime therefore remained controlling over the proposed construction.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the planning permission granted under the town planning law displaced the requirement of compliance with the municipal building sanction regime and the later regulatory notifications; (ii) whether the respondents acquired a vested right or deemed sanction for the building plan so as to prevent application of the amended regulations and the temporary freeze on development.

Issue (i): whether the planning permission granted under the town planning law displaced the requirement of compliance with the municipal building sanction regime and the later regulatory notifications.

Analysis: The town planning statute and the municipal corporation statute operated in different but complementary fields. The former laid down the broad planning policy and the latter governed building sanction by the municipal authority. Sanction under the planning regime did not dispense with compliance with the municipal law, its bye-laws, or binding regulations and notifications issued under the planning statute. A statutory authority could not grant permission contrary to the governing statutory framework, including the amended planning regulations and the temporary freeze order.

Conclusion: The municipal sanction requirement remained mandatory, and the later planning restrictions bound the municipal authority.

Issue (ii): whether the respondents acquired a vested right or deemed sanction for the building plan so as to prevent application of the amended regulations and the temporary freeze on development.

Analysis: A pending application or an incomplete approval process does not create a vested right unless all statutory conditions precedent are satisfied. The deeming provision for delay had restricted operation and could not be invoked where the plans had been returned for compliance or where the proposed construction would violate the applicable law. A settled expectation to obtain sanction does not override a subsequent valid change in law, especially where public interest and protected zoning regulations are involved. The later declaration of core area and heritage zone therefore applied to the respondents' case.

Conclusion: The respondents had no vested right and no deemed sanction that could survive the amended regulations.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was unsustainable because the respondents' application remained subject to the prevailing statutory and regulatory regime, which validly barred the proposed construction.

Ratio Decidendi: A pending building plan application does not confer a vested right or deemed sanction against a subsequent valid statutory or regulatory restriction, and municipal sanction cannot be granted in violation of binding planning regulations.

---