AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aftab Alam, J.—The Authority has refused to give its sanction to the construction plan submitted by the petitioner. The order of refusal was communicated to the petitioner by letter no.2493 dated 21.7.1998 (Annexure-7). From this letter it appears that the sanction was refused solely on the ground that the petitioner did not submit any document showing mutation of his name in respect of the place of land in question in the revenue records. The action of the respondents in refusing to accord sanction on that ground is patently illegal and unsustainable in law.
A bench of this court in Baleshwar Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors, 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. 358 has already held that the submission of a document showing mutation of the name of the land owner along with the application for sanction of the construction plan is not a mandatory requirement and on that basis sanction to the construction plan cannot be withheld. After examining Bye-Law 5.3(v) of the Authority''s Bye-Laws it was observed as follows :�
From a bare perusal of the aforementioned provision it is clear that the accompanying of attested copy of the mutation record along with the application for building permit is not mannandatory, rather it is open for an applicant to file an attested copy of the revenue survey sheet or Municipal Survey sheet with khesra number or even an affidavit or other documents to show his ownership and title of the land on which the building is proposed to be constructed.
In view of the aforesaid Division Bench decision, the decision of the Authority to withhold sanction to the construction plan submitted by the petitioner is set aside and the Authority is further directed to consider the petitioner''s application for sanction in accordance with law and to pass a final order on his request for sanction within a month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.