Section 8G
;::·.-ohiibi~ion to buikling wi'l.nout s~mclio11.-l\lo- person shalt erect or commence to erect any building, or make any addition o~ aneration to any building except wiih the previous sanction or the Vice-Chairman, and in accordance wiiil the provision of this Chapter and the regulations made under this Act .
8G. ;::·.-ohiibi~ion to buikling wi'l.nout s~mclio11.-l\lo- person shalt erect or commence to erect any building, or make any addition o~ aneration to any building except wiih the previous sanction or the Vice-Chairman, and in accordance wiiil the provision of this Chapter and the regulations made under this Act .
Provided that the Authority ma/make separate set of nequ:ations for d!ffcr-a:-ii areas or difie~cnt l{ir.ds of areas .
Comments & case-law
[In case -::>i Cl 1stn.1eiion made without obtainin·!1 pnor-sanction of tho control.linr. , . authority ft is '10t a requiromeni of law that the complaint be filed by the commi!ing authoritv State vs . Rajendra Presed, 1965 ell.JR 520 ,
Res·1ricticm , imposed upon a person from making 2ny construction Without obtaining prior sanction of' the Controlling Authority by the provisions of the Act . '::'.c, not in any way restrict tho power of the controlling authority itself to grant sanction to a plar even after the construction is made . Tho exercise o" sud power 01 post facto sanction of a plan is not , ln any .w2Jy, inconsistent with the purpose and object of the statute . Mosst. Lexm! Jain vs . R. S. Sobin), ·i 965 3L;JR 963.
Socilon 35 provides for restrictions upon ·all persons to erect or. commence tc erect ;..ry buitding or make any addition or alteration to' any building except w ith the previous sanction or the Vice-Chairman, and :n accorcanco with 01iaptor VI o: t:1is Ac"! and the regulations made thereunder. Doman .Paswan vs . State of 3il:12r, 1938 PUP. 968 .
The authorities directed not to demolish such buildings, which have bean . constructed strictll1 in· accordance wiih the sanctioned plan. in cases 1111hero !here ls a deviation hof"' the _sarictioned plan, the builders to file a detailed representation before the Vice Chairman. The Vice· Chairman to hear and pass appropri::it:=: orders with reference to the materials on record and also consider regarding U,e ~imnt of post .acto sanction , with the building byelaws. where deviation has been done from the sanctioned plan . Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 1998 ('l) PLJR 927 .
A plan for senction of construction of 3 ooilciing cannot be rotused 011 the grounrl . or non -submission of documents .showinq mutation or the land owner. /i.j,:.1y r-:umar Jha vs . Stete or Bihat; 2000 (i) PLJR 226.
Approval giv0n oy the authorities to a plan i'or- construction o1 a house ex:::a::ii on an aree falling in common between the member .of the same ·family: If _, . : .... -· : ........ ,,.... .. ;h" r-nn-
Sec.
36]
Bihar
Re~ional
Development
Authority
Act
,
19/4
struction in the common arcs demolition car. not be ordered by the c.utho~iti£ The owner of the house directed to file fresh representation before ths Vi< Chairman , PROA for according sanction for the disputed structure alongwi,~ t'· compromise petition . Uma Jeyesws! vs. Chairman Pl-?DA , 2000 (i) PLJR '2!::
-approval 91ven ,o pelilioner except on the area falling commor bctwe( members of the same family and it was observed that approval for cans ructrc on the common area woulcf be given afier petitioner has fited a comprome agreement for the common areaorder for demolition of such area passed n , thereafter a compromise petition filed-in view of the compromise petition, dem lition is not required end V.C. directed to accord his approval after the ;:K!ition filed his application tor the same. Uma . Iayaswal vs . Chairman , PROA, 2GDO ( PLJR,125.
Seciion 35 read with Sye Law 5 . 3 (v) --a plan for sanction of constructk cannot be refused on the ground of non-submission of document showing m,11 tion of the name of the land owner . Krishna Kumar Giri vs. Vice Chairman, 20l (1) PLJR 226 .
-sanction of pl:1r;.i for erection, addition or aheranon -there is no ,sqllir ment l!/s 36 that the landlord should disclose , while applyinq for scncton, H occupancy by tenants of the portion ~"hich is for sanction of plan-word · vr.d any law " u/s 37 has to be read ejusdem qeneris -non- disclosure of occ pancy by tenants in the plan for sanction does not amount 10 mlsrep~essnlarv. of fraud or evictlon of tenant bypassing lhe 8 . 8.C . Act, i 982 vivek Aror,? : , Patna Regio , 1a/ Development Autnority; 200i (2) PLJA 798 . ]
. 36 . Erec~!on of buildings , ei:c .-(J) Every person, inc!uding local aL·ihortl body corporate constituted under any law and a department of Central or 3ta Government who intcnds->
(a) to carry out a development plan or any other development wor'<
(b) to make any addition or alteration thereto, shall apply for sanctk by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Vice-Chairman such torm and containing such information as may be prescrior by regulations made in this behalf .
Provided that ·no such sanction need be sough1 if the alteration is to ~ done internally in a buikiing withoul affecting the position of oath-room , _ ;(itchE and drainage arranqements and further that the proposed internal aiieratio;-s doi " not violate the provisions of the building regulations or planning standards ti,i ~n iorce.
Every such notice shall be accompanied by such documents anu p!a1 as may be prescribed .
Every applicatton under sub-section ('i) shat be accompanied by sw fee as may be proscribed by regulation made in this behalf:
· Provided 'urthsr that the operational constructions of the Railways , 0111 Central Government Departments, and Departments of Staie Government m, be exempted i,orn the provisions as aforesaid.
In resped of other works ot Railways , Central Government Department and departments of the State Government such as construction of new !ir.e new build:ngs, new structures and new inslaliations and reconstruction of existi: lines , buildings, structures and installations for both operational purposes and 1 extension of services permission of the Authority may be gmnteci or rejcc ~ !
iaiesi by three weeks from the date of r:.cuip, ..:,f notice or proper applicatic ci· iha A1..!iih0rl,y for tha purpose . In case no orders of the Authority are passer' , riu .;cm;-11uiiica'.0d to within ihe aforesaid time-limit of three ' weeks at the lates · "' R;;ii'.1::ays . Cantral Government Departments and State Government Departrr-ervs will be t;-0e to go ahead with the constructions . In caso .he Authoritv has rR jzcicd E:.ny proposal rn respect of Railways, Central Government or any Stato Gov3mment Departmeni · contained in the notice or apphc ition as aforesaid an apr,0c:1I si-i.:111 lie to the State Government if preferred withm a period of thirty nays . Whil& disposing of such appeal the State Govern ' ment shall consult the Cenlral Government or the Department , of the State Government as the ' case nv:1y bs.
(·1) Where permission is refused under sub-section (2) of Section 37 the app!ic8r.i or any person claiming through him shall not be ,c:.n@eC: to get refund, o , ·1:10 fps paid on the application for permission bu! the Authorityrnay on an :::'.'Jp[~iion ior refund being made within three months of communications of the groi.mcls d the refusal, direct refund of such portion of the :eP. as ii may de:qm i:1roper ir: tho circumstances of the . case.
(51 ·nJe P.uihority shalt l<eep in such form as may be prescribed by regu!a -, ' ons, ~ roqistar of aopncations for permission under ihis section.
{5) Ti19 said register shall contain such particulars mc?uding information as £0 lh3 manner · n which applications for permission have been cieall w:th as r.iav i::0 p , e:::::;ribed by · · regli'atiQns and shall be avaiiable for inspection to the public at ail reaeonaole hours on· payment of such fee, not exceedinq rupees five es may be pr.~~cribed by re _ g· ·!ations.
Comamnts . l!,
!, case l.:iw
[Sec.Ion 36 provides-that every person including local authority or body corporate constitu-ed under any law for the tirno being in force is required to .vpp!y to: sanction 'or erection of any building, the restrictions. imposed are manc''21ory in characteDomanPaswan vs. State of Bihar, r, 1988 PLJR 968 .
~.~~ " R""u' Pl@n.-The requirements of public . interest can outweigh the "IAgitirrate enpectatlon" O'. orivate persons and the decision of a public body (such as a- Development Authority) on that basis in exercise of statutory powers is not assaila:J!e . Where Development At.1hority had changed land. use of an area in ;he Wi.zisier Plan from 'recreationat" to " residential " and again trorn "residential " to " l"a:reat:o,al", ihe first change by the Development Authority docs not" giva rise. to 3 i.Z'l)ilimate expectation in a private coloniser owning land Jn the area that r.e coukl develop a housing colony therein merely because the coloniser had submt1o1 a plan '" or -approval to the Development Authority in cases whern grant o; approvc:I o , such plan
1fl is not automatic and the statute permits amendment o ~ U10 I\Jiaster p
01afl by change ot land use . Ghaziabad Development Authorily vs . De/I-·! 4uio and General Finance (P) Ltd., (1994) 4 sec 42 .
.3ei'o~e a space can be held to be a "street" under lhe Act , there must be :1 dedication by the owner to t!le public. in the present . case the appellant has ded'cated fne verandah in dispute tothe public use. It is being used tor passing and reoassinq by the public at large and as such is a "street " in terms of Section 3 (i 3) (a) of the Act. The appellant has, thus, surrendered his rights in · · · ·· · ., c , , ..,. L·- -· .i-1;_ TL~ , .,... ..... ,, .... ~ th ......... ~.,..,,n ...... 1·h, tc .-..nrl ~ hM:;&\1-C
dedicated to public by the owner for passing and repassmg, partakes it character of a 'street " and no longer remains under the control o! ths m·.rr.E The owner has no righi at all times to prevent the public from using tt same . When the owner of the property has, by his own volition permitted h property to be converted into c: " street", then he has no right to clarm ~· compensation when tho saf"1e property is made a " public street " under Se tior 171 (4) of the Act. Th!=! " Streets " are meant for public use It rs nece sary that the "streets" whicn arc being used by the public are rrequently r paired and are also saved from public abuse . in the absence of any regui tory control . the hawkers and squatters are likely to occupy the " street thereby creating nuisance for the public . In a situation like this i'I i::; nece sary for the Committee lo step in and exercise its powers under Ssciion 1" (4) of the Act . The Committee exercises rngulatory control and is resporu ble for the repair and upkeep of the " public streets". The verandah in d1 pute is a " stres . It has .':)eon declareci as a " public street " for tne bett snjovrncnt of the public-right in the said street , When a "street " is dacta« as " public street" the owner of the property · comprising the said " street" hi no right to claim compensation. Gobind Prasad Jagdish Persed vs . NDJ1Jl1 (1993) 4 sec '38 .
Seclions..,36 and 37 r/w section 38 -presumption of sanetior =-sancton f a development plan may or may not be accorded but in either case an infc,;-:1
i tion is to be given y y
to the applicant and in case no o-uors are passed within period of four months , then sanction can be presumed after the lapse of. : days of a reninder which goes unheeded -sections 36 ai1d 37 am comprens sive in nature and are a complete Codesection 38 is a coroliary rather a pr viso to section 37 . Rajesh Singh Buddhpriya vs . Pante Reg . Dev. v. Author! 2002 (2) PLJR , 263.J