Building plan sanctions must be decided under existing law; unapproved development plan changes cannot defeat pending applications.

Town planning law may validly regulate the right to construct, but any restriction must arise under the law already in force. A proposed amendment to a development plan that has not been brought into force or accepted by the State cannot be used to reject a pending building plan application. The application must be considered under the existing legal regime applicable when permission is granted, subject to decision within a reasonable time. Legitimate expectation is recognised only to the extent that a pending application cannot be defeated by an unimplemented change in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for sanction of building plans had to be decided in accordance with the law in force on the date of grant of approval, and whether the proposed but unnotified comprehensive development plan could be used to refuse sanction.

Analysis: Town planning legislation is regulatory in nature and may validly restrict the right to construct, but any restriction must operate through the existing law. A mere proposed amendment to a development plan, which has not yet been brought into force and has not been accepted by the State, cannot be used to defeat pending applications. Building plans must be dealt with under the law applicable when the permission is granted, though the statutory authority must act within a reasonable time. The doctrine of legitimate expectation was recognised only to the extent that the pending application could not be frustrated by an unimplemented change in law.

Conclusion: The application for sanction had to be considered under the existing law, and refusal based on the proposed valley zone in the unapproved revised plan was unsustainable. The conclusion was in favour of the appellants.

---