'Financial Considerations Can't Override Human Life': MP High Court Upholds Extension Of Building Permission That Expired During COVID

Update: 2026-07-15 04:00 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the extension of a building permission that had expired during the COVID-19 pandemic, observing that financial considerations cannot take precedence over life of a person. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 271]Rejecting the Municipal Corporation's attempt to compel the applicant to seek fresh permission and pay a new fee, the Court held that a person cannot be...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld the extension of a building permission that had expired during the COVID-19 pandemic, observing that financial considerations cannot take precedence over life of a person. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 271]

Rejecting the Municipal Corporation's attempt to compel the applicant to seek fresh permission and pay a new fee, the Court held that a person cannot be faulted for failing to commence construction when restrictions imposed during the pandemic made such activity legally impermissible.

The division bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that the respondent was unable to commence construction in the stipulated time due to restrictions imposed by the Union Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

"Appellant has failed to see that once there was a restrain order by the Union of India as well as by the officers of the respective districts in view of COVID-19 pandemic, and the life of the persons was under danger on account of their exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic, then the conduct of Municipal Corporation in pressurizing the respondent to apply for a fresh building permission just in order to collect a fresh fee for such permission cannot be appreciated. The financial repercussions cannot be above the life of a person".

An appeal was filed by the municipal corporation challenging the order of the Single Judge wherein it was directed to consider the case of respondents under Rule 23(3) of Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012, for extension of building permission.

Before the Single Judge, the corporation submitted that building permission was granted to raise a construction. The corporation granted an extension, as he was unable to initiate work within three years. The corporation granted another year, since construction could not begin in the extension period. The maximum life of a building permit is 5 years, and thus, the building permit expired on June 9, 2020. The Corporation rejected the application for extension to the permit on August 6, 2021. 

The respondent approached the Single Judge bench, who remanded the matter back to the Corporation to decide afresh under Rule 23(3) of the 2012 Rules. The corporation was also directed to consider the effect of various restraining orders issued in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The corporation noted that since the project had not begun, the provisions of Rule 23(2) of the 2012 Rules would not apply, and hence the application was rejected. However, the said order of the corporation was set aside by the Single Judge. 

The corporation stated that it is ready to consider the respondent's application under Section 200 of the Municipal Corporation Act. 

The counsel for the respondents argued that the life of the building permission had expired due to various COVID-related restrictions imposed by the Union of India. 

The court noted that the building permission expired on June 9, 2020 and noted that the restraining order was in force. The court also noted that the Single Judge considered the aforementioned aspect and therefore the corporation was directed to treat the extension application under Rule 23(3) of the 2012 Rules. 

The court further held that if the corporation was aggrieved by the said direction, it should have challenged the same by filing a writ appeal. The corporation, by taking the same stand in the reconsideration application, cannot overrule the direction of the single judge. 

The court also noted that the entire issue was related to the requirement that, for a fresh building permit, the applicant would be required to pay a fresh fee. 

The court concurred with the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. 

Case Title: Municipal Corporation Gwalior v Smt Padma Bansal WA-93-2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 271

For Appellant: Advocate Gaurav Mishra 

For Respondent no 1: Senior Advocate Arvind Dudawat and Advocate Rahul Jha

Click here to read/download the Order

Tags:    

Similar News