Deemed building permission denied where pandemic limitation orders applied and refusal was based on temple property protection.

Clause 5.1 of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-laws, 2011 does not confer deemed building permission where the sixty-day refusal period was effectively excluded during the COVID-19 disruption and in light of Supreme Court limitation extensions. The petitioner therefore could not rely on delayed communication of refusal. The refusal order was also sustained because it recorded that the land belonged to Mandir Shiv Ji, no lease deeds were produced before the competent authority, and the property was already covered by earlier writ and contempt directions protecting religious property from encroachment and unauthorised interests. The challenge failed, and the writ petition was held to be without merit.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner could claim deemed building permission under Clause 5.1 of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-laws, 2011 despite the refusal order being passed after sixty days; (ii) whether the impugned refusal order was sustainable on the grounds recorded in it, namely that the land was temple property and that the application was affected by the directions issued in prior proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner could claim deemed building permission under Clause 5.1 of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-laws, 2011 despite the refusal order being passed after sixty days.

Analysis: Clause 5.1 provides for deemed sanction only where the authority fails to refuse sanction and communicate the refusal within sixty days after the applicant has completed the requisite formalities. Although the petitioner's papers were stated to be complete by February 2020, the period in question coincided with the COVID-19 lockdown and disruption of municipal functioning. The Court accepted that the limitation period stood effectively excluded in the prevailing exceptional circumstances, particularly in the light of the Supreme Court's orders extending limitation during the pandemic. In that situation, the delayed communication of refusal did not confer a deemed permission.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to claim deemed building permission and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned refusal order was sustainable on the grounds recorded in it, namely that the land was temple property and that the application was affected by the directions issued in prior proceedings.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded that the land belonged to Mandir Shiv Ji, that the petitioner had not produced the lease deeds before the competent authority, and that the property was covered by earlier writ and contempt directions intended to protect religious properties from encroachment and unauthorized third-party interests. The Court held that its review was confined to the reasons stated in the order and that the petitioner's own pleadings and revenue extracts showed the land as temple property. The attempt to introduce a new plea of necessity in the rejoinder was treated as an afterthought, and the Court held that the earlier directions binding the authorities could not be ignored in the present proceeding.

Conclusion: The refusal order was upheld as valid and the challenge to it failed.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of building permission was sustained, the plea of deemed sanction was rejected, and the writ petition was found to be without merit.

Ratio Decidendi: A deemed sanction clause cannot be invoked where the statutory decision period is effectively excluded by binding pandemic-related limitation orders, and an application for building permission may validly be refused on recorded grounds showing that the land is protected temple property subject to prior court directions.

---