Authority Sanctioning Building Plan Can't Decide Private Title Dispute: Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Map Sanction
The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority deciding an application for sanction of a building map has no jurisdiction to hold that ownership of the land is disputed, except where the land belongs to the government or the Gaon Sabha or is the subject matter of proceedings. It held that where the dispute is private, the only question is whether an injunction is in force.Justice...
The Allahabad High Court has held that an authority deciding an application for sanction of a building map has no jurisdiction to hold that ownership of the land is disputed, except where the land belongs to the government or the Gaon Sabha or is the subject matter of proceedings. It held that where the dispute is private, the only question is whether an injunction is in force.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“..the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the ownership of the property is disputed except if the land is either belongs to government of Gaon Sabha or subject matter of any proceedings and in case there is a private dispute, only consideration would be whether there is an order of injunction”
Petitioner applied for sanction of a map. The Muzaffarnagar Development Authority called for a report from the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, which recorded that the land had passed through several hands before the petitioner bought it, the chain was complete and the sale deed subsisted and had not been set aside.
The Sub Divisional Magistrate nevertheless took the view that the petitioner's ownership was in doubt. The affidavit filed by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Saharanpur, and the appeal by order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the respondent authority.
The Court asked counsel for the State and for the Development Authority whether the authority could dispute ownership in map sanction proceedings at all, and recorded that no specific answer came. It took note of a judgment of a Coordinate Bench relied on by the petitioner, holding that a development authority is concerned only with enforcing building regulations and with the applicant's prima facie right, and title disputes belong to the civil court.
Counsel appearing for Muzaffarnagar Development Authority submitted that five suits questioning the validity of the sale deed had been filed, and that an injunction was passed on 09.07.2024 in Suit No. 260 of 2024, confined to an area of 0.1540. It was not extended by an order dated 23.11.2024, though it appears to have been extended again by an ex parte order dated 10.02.2026.
Noting that no injunction was operating when the impugned order was passed, though one operates now, the Court held,
“..there was no reason to reject the application for sanction the map and accordingly the appellate authority has also erred in law.”
Both orders were set aside and the matter remitted to the Muzaffarnagar Development Authority for a fresh order.
Case Title: Vinod Kumar Malik v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Appearances: Mr. Shashi Nandan and Mr. Nipun Singh, Senior Advocates assisted by Sri Shiv Pratap Singh Rathore, counsel for petitioner and Mr. Shiv Kumar Singh, counsel appearing for Muzaffarnagar Development Authority.