SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had applied on 26.12.1994 to the respondents for the grant of permission for construction of three storeyed commercial building over the existing single storey plus parking place and addition in ground floor on Khasra Nos. 281, 284, 288 to 310 and 312 to 318 at Bright Land, Cosy Nook Estate, Shimla-3

(2.) IT appears from the pleadings of the parties that the matter remained under consideration of the respondents and ultimately the 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. permission was declined by the respondent No.2 on 29.12.1997 primarily on the ground that the proposal falls in banned area of Shimla Planning Area. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the decision dated 29.12.1997 before the respondent No.1 under Section 32 of the Himachal Pradesh, Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.1 on 1.3.2000.

(3.) THE predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had applied for grant of permission on 26.12.1994. The planning permission for construction sought by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.2 on 29.12.1997. The petitioner had assailed the order dated 29.12.1997 before the respondent No.1. The petitioner had raised as many as two grounds in his appeal, namely, (a) that the permission will be deemed to have been sectioned and (b) the reasons assigned for rejecting the case of the petitioner were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the construction for which the planning permission was required by the petitioner would neither cause any obstruction nor create any congestion.