HC rejects plea for hotel construction in Shimla’s green belt

Shimla, October 17

Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a 22-year-old writ petition seeking permission to construct a three-storeyed hotel with a parking floor in Chhota Shimla, holding that the planning approval granted in 1997 did not confer any vested right to undertake construction after the area was subsequently declared a green belt and core area.

Justice Sandeep Sharma, while deciding CWP No. 511 of 2004, filed by Uma Devi and others against the State government and other authorities, ruled that the petitioners could not claim construction rights merely on the basis of the approval granted by the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department on September 2, 1997.

The court observed that the TCP approval was conditional upon obtaining a separate building permission from the Shimla Municipal Corporation before commencing construction. The corporation had refused permission in June 1998, citing the absence of clear title to the land. The property, comprising Khasra No. 367 and related parcels, remained jointly owned, with partition proceedings pending before the competent court.

Subsequently, notifications issued in 2000 brought the area within the green belt and core area of Shimla, imposing restrictions on construction. The petitioners argued that the earlier approval should protect their right to build despite the subsequent changes in land-use regulations.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that the statutory approval granted by the TCP Department could not substitute for the mandatory building permission required from the Municipal Corporation. Since the latter permission had never been granted before the restrictions came into force, no vested right to construct had accrued to the petitioners.

The court also examined Section 34 of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, as amended in 2022, which provides that planning permissions remain valid in perpetuity, subject to the statutory provision permitting their revalidation or revision. It held that this provision did not automatically entitle the petitioners to undertake construction in the green belt.

Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the court reiterated that private claims or settled expectations cannot override statutory restrictions imposed in the public interest.

The court dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioners would have to submit a fresh application to the competent authority, if permissible under the applicable law, to seek construction permission.

About the Author

himachaleditor

Editor

View All Posts