HP High Court Rejects Plea for Hotel Construction in Shimla Green Belt
Shimla, October 17:The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a 22-year-old petition seeking permission to construct a three-storey hotel with a parking floor in Chhota Shimla, holding that planning permission granted in 1997 did not confer an enforceable right to build 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 Himachal Pradesh government and other authorities, ruled that the petitioners could not claim a vested right to construction because the mandatory building permission from the Shimla Municipal Corporation had never been granted.
The petitioners had sought approval for construction on land falling under Khasra No. 367 in Station Ward, Chhota Shimla. The Town and Country Planning Department had approved their development plans on September 2, 1997, following government approval. However, the Municipal Corporation refused building permission on June 2, 1998, citing the absence of clear land title.
The dispute continued through representations, contempt proceedings and subsequent litigation. Meanwhile, notifications issued in 2000 brought the proposed construction site within the green belt and core area of Shimla, imposing restrictions on construction.
The petitioners argued that the 1997 planning permission had created a right to construct and that the subsequent notifications should not defeat their claim. The State government, however, maintained that the permission was subject to conditions, including obtaining building approval from the Municipal Corporation, and that the sanction could not be acted upon after the area was brought under the green belt and core-area restrictions.
The court noted that the land remained jointly owned by several co-sharers and partition proceedings were pending before the competent court. It also observed that the Municipal Corporation had never issued the building permission required under the original planning sanction.
Referring to amendments to the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977, the court noted that Section 34 now provides that permissions granted under Sections 31, 32 and 33 remain in force in perpetuity, subject to the provision allowing the Director to revalidate or revise a permission on an application. However, the court held that this provision did not help the petitioners because the required municipal building permission had never been granted and the site had subsequently been included in the green belt and core area.
The court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including *Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata Sood* and *Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.*, to reiterate that planning approval and municipal building permission operate under separate statutory requirements and that an alleged vested right or settled expectation cannot override amended statutory restrictions and public interest.
The judgment observed that the 1997 permission had lost its relevance in the changed circumstances. The petitioners would have to submit a fresh application to the competent authority, if permissible under the applicable law, to seek construction in the green belt/core area.
Dismissing the petition as devoid of merit, the High Court declined to direct the authorities to grant the requested construction permission.
#HimachalPradesh #Shimla #HimachalHighCourt #UrbanPlanning
