Unilaterally Revoking Building Permission After Substantial Construction Without Proof Of Fraud Violates Right To Property: MP High Court

While quashing the revocation of building permission and demolition order issued by Indore Municipal Corporation, Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that once the body had granted valid building permission upon which parties undertook construction, it cannot subsequently revoke the permission in the absence of any proof of fraud.In doing so the court said, that such conduct would violate the citizen's right of property under Article 300 of the Constitution. The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed; "The unilateral revocation of a validly granted permission, especially after the citizen has substantially altered their position and expended massive capital on construction, without any proof of fraud, is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the right to hold property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India". The petitioners approached the High Court seeking to quash the revocation order of May 9, 2019 and the subsequent demolition notice of February 4, 2020, issued by the Indore Municipal Corporation. The petitioners contended that the municipal authorities had arbitrarily revoked the building permission that had been lawfully granted and threatened demolition of their property. Per the facts, the petitioners were owners of a residential house situated at Chain Singh ka Bagicha, Indore, and it was purchased in two parties by the petitioner no 1 and her late husband through registered sale deeds of April 2 and May 14 of 1998. In July 2017, the petitioners applied for building permission before the municipal authorities. Pursuant to the application, a public notice was published on July 5, 2017, inviting objections from members of the public. After conducting the requisite scrutiny and verification, the competent authority sanctioned the layout plan and granted building permission on July 27, 2017. Acting upon the sanction, the petitioners commenced construction and substantially completed a three-storey structure. Nearly two years later, in February 2019, the corporation issued a show cause notice alleging that while the sanctioned map reflected an 18-meter-wide road abutting the property, the Indore Master Plan envisaged a 30-meter-wide road at the site. The petitioners were called upon to explain why the building permission should not be revoked. In response, the petitioners submitted that the road width of 18 meters had been verified by the Corporation's own Building Inspector during the processing of the application. Despite the reply, the Corporation revoked the building permission through its order of May 9, 2019. Thereafter, an notice under Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act was issued, culminating in the demolition notice dated February 4, 2020. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the building permission was validly granted under Rule 27 of the MP Bhumi Vikas Rules after due verification by the competent authorities. It was submitted that the construction was carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and there had been no concealment, suppression or misrepresentation of material facts. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents contended that the layout plan submitted by the petitioners incorrectly depicted the road width as 18 meters, whereas the applicable Master Plan prescribed the same as 30 meters. The respondents argued that under Rule 31, the responsibility to furnish accurate and complete information lies upon the applicant and the architect. The court noted that there was 'a glaring and unexplained slumber' by the Municipal Corporation, which first formally granted the permission and then remained silent for two years, only to abruptly issue a show cause notice in February 2019. The court noted that the core issue is regarding the alleged suppression of material facts. The court noted that the respondents failed to establish any active misrepresentation by the petitioners. The court noted that the site conditions were physically verified and processed by the Building Inspector. The court noted that, "When the statutory authority's own inspector physically verifies the existing 18-meter road and forwards the file for sanction, the subsequent approval cannot be branded as a product of the applicant's deceit or misrepresentation". The bench further emphasised that the respondents were trying to stay silent regarding their own erring officials while trying to shift the burden upon the petitioners. Thus, the bench held that once it is established that there was no active concealment or false statement by the petitioners, the punitive powers of revocation under Rule 25 cannot be invoked against the petitioners. Additionally, the court held that once the corporation had granted permission and the petitioners had acted on the same and spent a large amount of money on construction, the corporation cannot go back and revoke the permission without there being any proof of fraud. The said action of the corporation was arbitrary,...

Unilaterally Revoking Building Permission After Substantial Construction Without Proof Of Fraud Violates Right To Property: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Unilaterally Revoking Building Permission After Substantial Construction Without Proof Of Fraud Violates Right To Property: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers