No Vested Right To Construct Hotel In Shimla's Green Belt Without Municipal Building Permission: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a planning sanction granted by the Town and Country Planning Department does not create any vested right to undertake construction when the mandatory building permission from the Municipal Corporation has not been obtained.
The Court observed that once an area is declared a green belt/core area, the restrictions imposed in public interest would prevail over the private rights or legitimate expectations claimed on the basis of an earlier planning sanction.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “No vested right otherwise can be said to have vested in the petitioners, once area in question has been declared to be green belt/core area, no permission has been granted to the petitioners to raise construction in the green belt/core area.”
The petitioners, claiming ownership of land situated at Station Ward, Chhota Shimla, sought permission to construct a three-storeyed hotel with a parking floor. The Town and Country Planning Department granted planning permission on September 2, 1997, under Section 31 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977.
However, the Municipal Corporation, Shimla, refused to grant building permission citing a lack of clear title. Subsequently, the land was declared a green belt/core area through notifications issued in 2000.
Aggrieved by the authorities' refusal to grant construction permission, the petitioners approached the High Court seeking enforcement of the earlier planning sanction.
The High Court observed that the planning permission granted under Section 31 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, was conditional upon obtaining separate building permission from the Municipal Corporation, Shimla. Since the petitioners had never obtained such permission, no vested right to undertake construction had accrued in their favour.
The Court further held that although Section 34 of the Act, as amended in 2022, provides that planning permissions remain valid in perpetuity, this does not dispense with the requirement of obtaining municipal building sanction.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioners would have to submit a fresh application, if permissible under the applicable law, before the competent authority.
Case No.: CWP No.511 of 2024
Date of Decision: 16.10.2026