{"id":203631,"date":"1980-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1980-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980"},"modified":"2016-07-24T16:17:44","modified_gmt":"2016-07-24T10:47:44","slug":"chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980","title":{"rendered":"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR  653, \t\t  1981 SCR  (1)1073<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Pathak, R.S.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCHET RAM VASHIST\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &amp; ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT05\/11\/1980\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR  653\t\t  1981 SCR  (1)1073\n 1980 SCC  (4) 647\n\n\nACT:\n     Delhi Municipal  Corporation Act 1957 S. 313(1) (3) and\n(5)-Sanction to\t a lay-out  plan-application for-Failure  of\nStanding  Committee   to  accord   sanction  within   period\nspecified in  S. 313(3)-applicant whether can regard lay-out\nplan as sanctioned.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Delhi\tMunicipal  Corporation\tAct,  1957  by\tsub-\nsection (1)  of section\t 313 obliges  the owner of the land,\nbefore utilising, selling or otherwise dealing with the land\nunder section 312 to apply to the Commissioner with a layout\nplan of\t the land  for sanction\t to the\t lay-out plan.\tSub-\nsection (3)  of\t the  said  section  requires  the  Standing\nCommittee,  within   sixty  days   after  receipt   of\t the\napplication, either  to accord\tsanction to the lay-out plan\nor to  disallow it or ask for further information in respect\nof it.\tIf further  information is asked for, the ban on the\nowner utilising,  selling or otherwise dealing with the land\ncontinues to  operate until  orders have  been passed by the\nStanding Committee on receipt of the information.\n     The appellant's father who owned a large parcel of land\nsituated within\t the Municipal limits, decided on developing\nthe land  as a\tresidential colony  and submitted  a lay-out\nplan for sanction under section 313, which was sanctioned by\nthe Standing  Committee on  10th December,  1958. After\t the\ndeath of  the appellant's  father, the\tappellant thought it\ndesirable that the lay-out plan should include provision for\nthe construction of a cinema and he submitted an application\ndated  20th  April,  1967  accompanied\tby  a  copy  of\t the\nsanctioned lay-out plan indicating the proposed changes, and\nprayed for  an early  sanction in terms of the provisions of\nsection 313. The Town Planner of the Corporation informed by\nletter, dated  14th June,  1967 that  as the application did\nnot fall  within the purview of section 313, and that as the\nMaster Plan  did not  envisage a cinema within a residential\narea,  the   request   could   not   be\t  considered.\tSome\ncorrespondence followed and ultimately by letter, dated 29th\nSeptember, 1969 the appellant was informed that his proposal\ncould not be accepted.\n     Feeling aggrieved,\t the appellant filed a Writ Petition\nin the High Court alleging that the application had not been\nconsidered by  the Standing  Committee\tand  as\t the  period\nprescribed by  the statute  for doing  so  had\texpired\t the\nrevised\t lay-out   plan\t must  be  treated  as\thaving\tbeen\nsanctioned. The\t Single Judge  of the High Court allowed the\nWrit Petition  and directed  the Corporation  to  treat\t the\nrevised lay-out\t plan as  having been  approved but observed\nthat it was open to the Standing Committee under sub-section\n(5) of\tsection 313  to prohibit  the  construction  of\t the\ncinema.\t The   respondent-Corporation  preferred  a  Letters\nPatent Appeal  and the\tDivision Bench\tof  the\t High  Court\nallowed the  appeal, holding  that  the\t appellant  was\t not\nentitled to invoke sub-section (3) of section 313.\n     In the  appeal to\tthis Court, on the question, whether\nthe failure  of the  Standing  Committee  of  the  Municipal\nCorporation to consider under sub-section\n1074\n(3) of\tsection 313  of the Act, an application for sanction\nto a  lay-out plan  within the\tperiod specified in the sub-\nsection can result in a deemed grant of the sanction:\n^\n     HELD: 1. Merely because the Standing Committee does not\nconsider the grant of sanction on the application made under\nsub-section (1)\t of section 313 within the specified period,\ndoes not entitle the applicant to regard the lay-out plan as\nhaving been sanctioned. [1080F]\n     2. The  Municipal Corporation  is obliged\tto refer the\napplication dated  20th April,\t1967 alongwith\tthe  lay-out\nplan accompanying  it, to  its Standing Committee to dispose\nof the\tapplication expeditiously  in accordance  with\tlaw.\n[1082B]\n     3. Sub-sections  (3) and (5) of section 313 prescribe a\nperiod within  which the  Standing Committee  is expected to\ndeal with  the application  made under\tsub-section (1). But\nneither sub-section  declares that if the Standing Committee\ndoes not  deal with  the application  within the  prescribed\nperiod of  sixty days  it will\tbe deemed  that sanction has\nbeen accorded.\tThe statute  merely  requires  the  Standing\nCommittee to  consider the application within sixty days. It\nstops short  of indicating  what will  be the  result if the\nStanding Committee fails to do so. [1070C]\n     4. If the Act intended that the failure of the Standing\nCommittee to  deal with\t the matter  within  the  Prescribed\nperiod should imply a deemed sanction it would have said so.\n[1070C]\n     5. When  sub-section (3)  declares\t that  the  Standing\nCommittee  shall   within  sixty  days\tof  receipt  of\t the\napplication deal  with it,  and when  the  proviso  to\tsub-\nsection (5)  declares that  the Standing Committee shall not\nin any\tcase delay the passing of orders for more than sixty\ndays the statute merely prescribes a standard of time within\nwhich it  expects the  Standing Committee  to dispose of the\nmatter. It  is a  standard which the statute considers to be\nreasonable. But\t non-compliance does  not result in a deemed\nsanction to the lay-out plan. [1070E-F]\n     6. Parliament  did not  apparently view  the matter  of\nsanctioning a  lay-out\tplan  as  possessing  the  immediacy\nassociated with\t the actual  erection of  a  building or the\nexecution  of\ta  work,   where  on   the  failure  of\t the\nCommissioner to\t refuse\t sanction  or  to  communicate\tsuch\nrefusal within\ta specified period the applicant is entitled\nto commence and proceed with the building or work. [1070G]\n     7. There  is nothing  in  section\t313  which  has\t the\ncontextual character  of sections  336 and 337. A perusal of\nsections 336  and 337  confirms that the cases covered there\nare controlled\tby  a  tightly\twoven  time-bound  programme\nstrongly  indicating   Parliament's  intent  to\t regard\t the\nerection of  a building\t and the  execution  of\t a  work  as\nmatters of  the utmost\texpedition and urgency. This network\nof provisions demonstrate the urgency attached by Parliament\nto the\tcase where  a building\thas to\tbe erected or a work\nexecuted. [1079H-1080A, E]\n     8. Sanction  to the  lay-out plan is also a preliminary\nstep  in   the\tprocess\t  of  utilising\t the  land  for\t the\nconstruction of buildings thereon. It is necessary to obtain\nthat sanction  because it is a pre-requisite to the grant of\nsanction for  the erection  of the building or the execution\nof the work. [1081B]\n     9. The  appellant was  right in  making the application\nunder section 313 in regard to the amalgamation of the three\nplots for the proposed construction\n1075\nof  a\tcinema\tbuilding.  The\tStanding  Committee  has  to\ndetermine whether  the lay-out\tplan  now  proposed  can  be\nsanctioned. It\tmay refuse  the sanction  by reason  of sub-\nsection (4)  of section\t 313 on any of the grounds specified\ntherein. That will be a matter for the Standing Committee to\nconsider. [1081C-D]\n     10. It  is\t open  to  the\towner  of  the\tland,  after\nobtaining sanction  to the  original lay-out  plan to  apply\nafresh for sanction to a revised lay-out plan. Circumstances\nmay  arise,   after  the   original  sanction  was  granted,\nrequiring the  owner to\t incorporate changes in the original\nlay-out plan. In that event, when an application is made for\nthe grant of sanction to a revised lay-out plan it is, as it\nwere, an  application for  the grant  of a  fresh  sanction.\nThere is a fresh lay-out plan for which sanction is applied.\nIt is  differently constituted\tfrom  the  original  lay-out\nplan. Such  an application  would fall\tunder  section\t313.\n[1081F-G]\n     In\t the  instant  case  the  application  made  by\t the\nappellant for  sanction to the lay-out plan must be regarded\nas pending  before the\tStanding  Committee  which  must  be\ndisposed of without any further delay. [1080G]\n     Municipal Corporation of Delhi &amp; ors. versus Smt. Kamla\nBhandari &amp; Ors. I.L.R. (1970) 1, Delhi 66 disapproved.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 147 of<br \/>\n1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated 16-10-1973 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 238\/72.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Dr.  L.   M.  Singhvi   and  Mahinder  Narain  for\t the<br \/>\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Lal Narain Sinha Att. Genl. of India, B. P. Maheshwari,<br \/>\nSuresh Sethi and S. K. Bhattacharyya for Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Sardar Bahadur  Saharya and  Vishnu Bahadur Saharya for<br \/>\nRespondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     PATHAK, J.-Does  the failure  of the Standing Committee<br \/>\nof the\tDelhi Municipal Corporation to consider under sub-s.<br \/>\n(3) of\ts. 313,\t Delhi Municipal  Corporation Act,  1957, an<br \/>\napplication for sanction to a lay-out plan within the period<br \/>\nspecified in  the subsection  result in\t a &#8220;deemed&#8221; grant of<br \/>\nthe sanction?  That is the principal question raised in this<br \/>\nappeal by  special  leave  which  is  directed\tagainst\t the<br \/>\njudgment and  order of\tthe  Delhi  High  Court\t allowing  a<br \/>\nLetters Patent\tAppeal and  dismissing a writ petition filed<br \/>\nby the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellant&#8217;s  father,  Amin  Chand,  owned  a  large<br \/>\nparcel of  land in  village  Chowkhandi\t near  Tilak  Nagar,<br \/>\nNajafgarh Road,\t New Delhi. The land was situated within the<br \/>\nmunicipal limits  of Delhi. Amin Chand decided on developing<br \/>\nthe land  as a\tresidential colony  named, after his father,<br \/>\nthe &#8220;Gangaram  Vatika Colony&#8221;.\tHe submitted  a lay-out plan<br \/>\nfor sanction under s. 313 of the Delhi Municipal<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1076<\/span><br \/>\nCorporation Act,  1957.\t The  plan  was\t sanctioned  by\t the<br \/>\nStanding Committee  of the  Delhi Municipal  Corporation  by<br \/>\nResolution No.\t17 passed  on 10th December, 1958. A revised<br \/>\nlay-out plan  was approved  by\tthe  Standing  Committee  by<br \/>\nResolution No.\t871 dated  12th November,  1964.  Meanwhile,<br \/>\nAmin Chand  died, and  the appellant,  his son,\t thought  it<br \/>\ndesirable that the lay-out plan should include provision for<br \/>\nthe construction  of a\tcinema. Plots  Nos. 33,\t 34  and  35<br \/>\napproved  as   separate\t units\t for  the   construction  of<br \/>\nresidential houses  in the  lay-out plan were selected as an<br \/>\namalgamated unit  for the  cinema. An application dated 20th<br \/>\nApril, 1967, accompanied by a copy of the sanctioned lay-out<br \/>\nplan indicating\t the proposed  changes,\t was  filed  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant and  he prayed  for &#8220;an early sanction in terms of<br \/>\nthe provisions\tof s.  313&#8221; of\tthe Act. The Town Planner of<br \/>\nthe Corporation informed him by letter dated 14th June, 1967<br \/>\nthat his  application did  not fall within the purview of s.<br \/>\n313 and\t that, moreover,  the Master Plan did not envisage a<br \/>\ncinema within  a residential area, and therefore the request<br \/>\ncould  not   be\t considered.  Some  correspondence  followed<br \/>\nbetween the appellant and the Corporation and concluded with<br \/>\na  letter   of\t29th  September,  1969\tby  the\t Corporation<br \/>\ninforming the  appellant that  his  proposal  could  not  be<br \/>\naccepted because  it would  contravene the  Master  Plan  of<br \/>\nDelhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Appellant  filed a  writ petition in the High Court<br \/>\nof  Delhi   alleging  that  the\t application  had  not\tbeen<br \/>\nconsidered by  the Standing  Committee, and  as\t the  period<br \/>\nprescribed by  the statute  for doing  so  had\texpired\t the<br \/>\nrevised\t lay-out   plan\t must  be  treated  as\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\nsanctioned. Accordingly,  he prayed  that the respondents be<br \/>\nrestrained from\t interfering with  his right  to  raise\t the<br \/>\nconstruction including\tthe cinema  building  in  accordance<br \/>\nwith the revised lay-out plan. A learned Single Judge of the<br \/>\nHigh Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the<br \/>\nCorporation to treat the revised lay-out plan as having been<br \/>\napproved, but  observed that  the  appellant  would  not  be<br \/>\nentitled to  construct a  cinema  on  the  land\t unless\t due<br \/>\ncompliance had\tbeen effected  with other  provisions of the<br \/>\nlaw and\t that it  was open  to the  Standing Committee under<br \/>\nsub-s. (5)  of s.  313 to  prohibit the\t construction of the<br \/>\ncinema. The  Corporation preferred  a Letters Patent Appeal,<br \/>\nand a  Division Bench  of the High Court by its judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 16th October, 1973 allowed the appeal, set aside<br \/>\nthe judgment  and order\t of the\t learned  Single  Judge\t and<br \/>\ndismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Section 313  of the  Corporation Act  consists  of\t the<br \/>\nfollowing provisions:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;313. (1)  Before utilising,\tselling or otherwise<br \/>\n     dealing with  any land  under section  312,  the  owner<br \/>\n     thereof shall send to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1077<\/span><br \/>\n     Commissioner a  written application with a lay-out plan<br \/>\n     of the land showing the following particulars, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (a) the plots into which the land is proposed<br \/>\n\t  to  be  divided  for\tthe  erection  of  buildings<br \/>\n\t  thereon and the purpose or purposes for which such<br \/>\n\t  buildings are to be used;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (b) the\treservation or allotment of any site<br \/>\n\t  for  any  street,  open  space,  park,  recreation<br \/>\n\t  ground,  school,   market  or\t  any  other  public<br \/>\n\t  purpose;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (c) the\tintended level,\t direction and width<br \/>\n\t  of street or streets,\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (d) the regular line of street or streets;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (e)  the\t  arrangements\tto   be\t  made\t for<br \/>\n\t  levelling,\tpaving,\t    metalling,\t   flagging,<br \/>\n\t  channelling, sewering,  draining,  conserving\t and<br \/>\n\t  lighting street or streets.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (2) The  provisions of  this Act  and the bye-laws<br \/>\n     made thereunder  as to  width of the public streets and<br \/>\n     the height\t of buildings  abutting thereon, shall apply<br \/>\n     in the  case of  streets referred to in sub-section (1)<br \/>\n     and all the particulars referred to in that sub-section<br \/>\n     shall be  subject\tto  the\t sanction  of  the  Standing<br \/>\n     Committee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (3) Within  sixty days  after the  receipt of\t any<br \/>\n     application  under\t  sub-section\t(1)   the   Standing<br \/>\n     Committee shall  either accord  sanction to the lay-out<br \/>\n     plan on such conditions as it may think fit or disallow<br \/>\n     it or ask for further information with respect to it.<br \/>\n\t  (4) Such sanction shall be refused-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (a) if  the particulars\tshown in the lay-out<br \/>\n\t  plan would  conflict with  any arrangements  which<br \/>\n\t  have been  made or which are in the opinion of the<br \/>\n\t  Standing Committee  likely to be made for carrying<br \/>\n\t  out any  general scheme  of development  of  Delhi<br \/>\n\t  whether contained  in the  master plan  or a zonal<br \/>\n\t  development plan prepared for Delhi or not; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (b) if the said lay-out plan does not conform<br \/>\n\t  to the  provisions of\t this Act  and bye-laws made<br \/>\n\t  thereunder; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t       (c) if any street proposed in the plan is not<br \/>\n\t  designed so as to connect at one end with a street<br \/>\n\t  which is already open.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (5) No  person shall\tutilise, sell  or  otherwise<br \/>\n     deal with\tany land  or lay-out  or make any new street<br \/>\n     without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders<br \/>\n     of the Standing Committee<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1078<\/span><br \/>\n     and if  further information is asked for, no step shall<br \/>\n     be taken  to utilise,  sell or  otherwise deal with the<br \/>\n     land or to lay-out or make the street until orders have<br \/>\n     been passed upon receipt of such information:<br \/>\n\t  Provided that the passing of such orders shall not<br \/>\n     be in  any case  delayed for more than sixty days after<br \/>\n     the Standing  Committee has  received  the\t information<br \/>\n     which it  considers necessary to enable it to deal with<br \/>\n     the said application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t  (6) The  lay-out plan\t referred to earlier in this<br \/>\n     section  shall,   if  so\trequired  by   the  Standing<br \/>\n     Committee, be prepared by a licensed town planner.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The principal  contention of the appellant before us is<br \/>\nthat on\t a true\t construction of  s. 313 it must be regarded<br \/>\nthat &#8216;there  is no  restriction on his utilising, selling or<br \/>\notherwise dealing  with the land in accordance with the lay-<br \/>\nout plan  because the  time prescribed by sub-s. (3) for the<br \/>\nStanding Committee  to take  action on\tthe application\t had<br \/>\nexpired&#8217;, and  reliance is place on Municipal Corporation of<br \/>\nDelhi &amp;\t ors. v.  Smt. Kamala  Bhandari\t &amp;  ors.(1).  It  is<br \/>\nnecessary to  examine for  the purpose\tof  this  case\twhat<br \/>\nParliament  intended   when  enacting\ts.  313.  Among\t the<br \/>\nobligations vested  in the Corporation under the Act are the<br \/>\nconstruction, maintenance and improvement of streets. Public<br \/>\nstreets vest  in the  Corporation and  the  Commissioner  is<br \/>\nenjoined to  ensure their  maintenance and  repair. Sections<br \/>\n313 to\t316 related to private streets. Section 312 provides<br \/>\nthat if the owner of any land utilises, sells, leases out or<br \/>\notherwise disposes  of such  land for  the  construction  of<br \/>\nbuildings thereon,  he must  lay-out and  make a  street  or<br \/>\nstreets giving\taccess to  the plots in which the land is to<br \/>\nbe divided and connecting with an existing public or private<br \/>\nstreet. Sub-s.\t(1) of s. 313 obliges the owner of the land,<br \/>\nbefore utilising, selling or otherwise dealing with the land<br \/>\nunder s.  312 to  apply to  the Commissioner  with a lay-out<br \/>\nplan of\t the land  for sanction\t to the\t lay-out  plan.\t The<br \/>\nparticulars detailed  in sub-s.\t (1) required  in a  lay-out<br \/>\nplan bear on the provisions of s. 312. The lay-out plan will<br \/>\nindicate in what manner the plots are proposed to be divided<br \/>\nand the\t use to\t which they  will be  applied as well as the<br \/>\ncondition and direction of the streets, which provide access<br \/>\nto them,  so that  it can  be determined whether the private<br \/>\nstreets proposed  in the  lay-out plan\twill adequately\t and<br \/>\nsufficiently serve the buildings raised on the plots. Sub-s.<br \/>\n(3) requires the Standing Committee, within sixty days after<br \/>\nreceipt of the application, either to accord sanction to the<br \/>\nlay-out plan or to disallow it<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1079<\/span><br \/>\nor ask\tfor further information in respect of it. If further<br \/>\ninformation is\tasked for,  the ban  on the owner utilising,<br \/>\nselling or  otherwise dealing  with the\t land  continues  to<br \/>\noperate until  orders  have  been  passed  by  the  Standing<br \/>\nCommittee on receipt of the information. That is sub-s. (5).<br \/>\nIts proviso  lays down that the passing of such orders shall<br \/>\nnot be\tin any\tcase delayed  for more than sixty days after<br \/>\nthe Standing Committee has received the information which it<br \/>\nconsiders necessary.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Sub-ss. (3) and (5) of s. 313 prescribe a period within<br \/>\nwhich the  Standing Committee  is expected  to deal with the<br \/>\napplication made  under sub-s.\t(1). But neither sub-section<br \/>\ndeclares that  if the  Standing Committee does not deal with<br \/>\nthe application\t within the  prescribed period of sixty days<br \/>\nit will\t be deemed  that sanction  has\tbeen  accorded.\t The<br \/>\nstatute merely\trequires the  Standing Committee to consider<br \/>\nthe  application  within  sixty\t days.\tIt  stops  short  of<br \/>\nindicating what will be the result if the Standing Committee<br \/>\nfails to  do so.  If it\t intended that\tthe failure  of\t the<br \/>\nStanding Committee  to\tdeal  with  the\t matter\t within\t the<br \/>\nprescribed period  should imply\t a deemed  sanction it would<br \/>\nhave said  so. They  are two distinct things, the failure of<br \/>\nthe Standing  Committee to  deal with the application within<br \/>\nsixty days  and that the failure should give rise to a right<br \/>\nin the\tapplicant to  claim that sanction has been accorded.<br \/>\nThe second  does not  necessarily follow  from the  first. A<br \/>\nright created  by legal fiction is ordinarily the product of<br \/>\nexpress legislation.  It seems\tto us  that when  sub-s. (3)<br \/>\ndeclares that the Standing Committee shall within sixty days<br \/>\nof receipt  of the  application deal  with it,\tand when the<br \/>\nproviso to  sub-s. (5)\tdeclares that the Standing Committee<br \/>\nshall not  in any  case delay the passing of orders for more<br \/>\nthan sixty  days the statute merely prescribes a standard of<br \/>\ntime within  which it  expects\tthe  Standing  Committee  to<br \/>\ndispose of  the matter.\t It is\ta standard which the statute<br \/>\nconsiders to  be&#8217; reasonable.  But non-compliance  does\t not<br \/>\nresult in a deemed sanction to the lay-out plan.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Besides the  absence of  express language\tcreating the<br \/>\nlegal consequence claimed by the appellant, there is nothing<br \/>\nin  the\t  context  to  persuade\t us  to\t accept\t the  claim.<br \/>\nParliament did not apparently view the matter of sanctioning<br \/>\na lay-out  plan as  possessing the immediacy associated with<br \/>\nthe actual  erection of\t a building  or the  execution of  a<br \/>\nwork, where  on the  failure of\t the Commissioner  to refuse<br \/>\nsanction or  to communicate  such refusal within a specified<br \/>\nperiod the  applicant is  entitled to  commence and  proceed<br \/>\nwith the  building or work. There is nothing in s. 313 which<br \/>\nhas the\t contextual character  of ss. 336 and 337. A perusal<br \/>\nof ss. 336 and 337 confirms that the cases covered there are<br \/>\ncontrolled by a tightly woven time-bound<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1080<\/span><br \/>\nprogramme strongly  indicating Parliament&#8217;s intent to regard<br \/>\nthe direction  of a  building and the execution of a work as<br \/>\nmatters of  the utmost expedition and urgency. Sub-s. (3) of<br \/>\ns. 336 requires the Commissioner to communicate the sanction<br \/>\nto  the\t  applicant  and,  where  sanction  is\trefused,  to<br \/>\ncommunicate the\t refusal with a statement of his reasons for<br \/>\nsuch refusal.  If the  period specified\t in sub-s. (1) of s.<br \/>\n337  has   expired  without  the  Commissioner\trefusing  to<br \/>\nsanction or, if refusing, without communicating the refusal,<br \/>\nthe applicant  can commence  and proceed  with the projected<br \/>\nbuilding or work. If it appears to the Commissioner that the<br \/>\nsite of\t the proposed  building or  work  is  likely  to  be<br \/>\naffected by  any scheme\t of acquisition of land for a public<br \/>\npurpose or by any of the other public works mentioned in the<br \/>\nproviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 337, he may withhold sanction of<br \/>\nthe proposed  building or  work, but  even therefor not more<br \/>\nthan three  months and\tthe period  specified  in  the\tsub-<br \/>\nsection is  computed as\t commencing from  the expiry of such<br \/>\nperiod. That is not all. On the sanction or deemed sanction,<br \/>\nthe applicant  must under  sub-s. (3) of s. 337 commence the<br \/>\nerection of the building or execution of the work within one<br \/>\nyear. Failure  to do  so will  reduce him  to the  need\t for<br \/>\ntaking fresh  steps for obtaining the sanction. Then, before<br \/>\ncommencing the\terection of the building or execution of the<br \/>\nwork with the period specified in sub-s. (3), he is obliged,<br \/>\nby virtue  of sub-s.  (4) to give notice to the Commissioner<br \/>\nof the\tproposed date  of  such\t commencement;\tand  if\t the<br \/>\ncommencement does  not take  place within  seven days  fresh<br \/>\nnotice is necessary. This network of provisions demonstrates<br \/>\nthe urgency  attached by  Parliament to\t the  case  where  a<br \/>\nbuilding has  to be  erected  or  a  work  executed.  It  is<br \/>\nconspicuous by\tits absence in s. 313. We are, therefore, of<br \/>\nopinion that if the Standing Committee does not consider the<br \/>\ngrant of  sanction on  the application made under sub-s. (1)<br \/>\nof s. 313 within the specified period, it is not open to the<br \/>\napplicant  to\tregard\tthe  lay-out  plan  as\thaving\tbeen<br \/>\nsanctioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are unable to endorse the contrary view taken by the<br \/>\nHigh Court  in Municipal Corporation of Delhi&#8217;s case (supra)<br \/>\nand overrule that decision.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The application  made by  the appellant for sanction to<br \/>\nthe lay-out  plan must\tbe regarded  as pending\t before\t the<br \/>\nStanding Committee  and must  now be disposed of without any<br \/>\nfurther delay.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appellate  Bench of  the High\tCourt has  taken the<br \/>\nview that  the application  does not lie under s. 313. As we<br \/>\nhave already  observed, the purpose of filing a lay-out plan<br \/>\nunder sub-s.  (1)  of  s.  313\tis  related  immediately  to<br \/>\ndetermining whether the access pro-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1081<\/span><\/p>\n<p>vided by  the  proposed\t private  streets  sufficiently\t and<br \/>\nadequately serves the purpose enacted in s. 312, and that is<br \/>\nwhy the\t lay-out plan must show the particulars specified in<br \/>\nsub-s. (1) of s. 313. Sanction to the lay-out plan is also a<br \/>\npreliminary step  in the  process of  utilising the land for<br \/>\nthe construction  of buildings\tthereon. It  is necessary to<br \/>\nobtain that  sanction because  it is  a pre-requisite to the<br \/>\ngrant of  sanction for\tthe erection  of the building or the<br \/>\nexecution of  the work.\t Under sub-s.  (1) of  s. 336, it is<br \/>\nopen to the Commissioner to refuse sanction of a building or<br \/>\nwork, in  cases falling\t under s.  312, if the lay-out plans<br \/>\nhave not  been sanctioned  in accordance with s. 313. In our<br \/>\nview, the  appellant was  right in  making  the\t application<br \/>\nunder s.  313 regard  to the amalgamation of the three plots<br \/>\nfor the\t proposed construction\tof a  cinema  building.\t The<br \/>\nStanding Committee has to determine whether the lay-out plan<br \/>\nnow proposed  can be  sanctioned. It may refuse the sanction<br \/>\nby reason  of sub-s.  (4) of  s. 313  on any  of the  ground<br \/>\nspecified therein.  That will  be a  matter for the Standing<br \/>\nCommittee to consider.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Appellate Bench of the High Court has held that the<br \/>\nappellant is not entitled to invoke sub-s. (3) of s. 313 for<br \/>\nthe grant  of sanction to the revised lay-out plan. The High<br \/>\nCourt was  apparently of  the view  that s. 313 is attracted<br \/>\nonly when  the owner  of the  land has\tnot yet\t utilised or<br \/>\notherwise dealt\t with  the  land  and  the  application\t for<br \/>\nsanction envisaged  under s.  313 is  the first\t application<br \/>\nmade for  the purpose.\tThe High  Court has  referred to the<br \/>\ncircumstances that the owner had already commenced to act on<br \/>\nthe sanction  granted to the original lay-out plan. We think<br \/>\nthat the  limited view\ttaken  by  the\tHigh  Court  is\t not<br \/>\njustified. It  is open to the owner of land, after obtaining<br \/>\nsanction to  the original  lay-out plan, to apply afresh for<br \/>\nsanction to a revised lay-out plan. Circumstances may arise,<br \/>\nafter the original sanction was granted, requiring the owner<br \/>\nto incorporate changes in the original lay-out plan. In that<br \/>\nevent, when an application is made for the grant of sanction<br \/>\nto a  revised lay-out plan it is, as it were, an application<br \/>\nfor the\t grant of a fresh sanction. There is a fresh lay-out<br \/>\nplan for  which\t sanction  is  applied.\t It  is\t differently<br \/>\nconstituted  from   the\t original   lay-out  plan.  Such  an<br \/>\napplication will  fall under  s. 313. It is no bar to making<br \/>\nsuch an\t application and  entertaining it that the owner has<br \/>\ncommenced to  utilise the  land or  otherwise dealt with it.<br \/>\nSection 312  implies that  the\tland  must  be\tutilised  in<br \/>\naccordance with\t the lay-out  plan. If\tthe  land  has\tbeen<br \/>\nutilised to  any degree\t by the appellant before 20th April,<br \/>\n1967,  the   utilisation  must\t conform  to   the  original<br \/>\nsanctioned lay-out  plan. No utilisation by the appellant in<br \/>\nthe manner subsequently proposed is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">1082<\/span><br \/>\npermissible unless  and until  sanction is  accorded to\t the<br \/>\nrevised lay-out plan. If such sanction is refused, it is the<br \/>\noriginal sanction  which will  continue to  operate, and the<br \/>\nlay out\t plan to  which such sanction was granted is the one<br \/>\nthat matters.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  circumstances, we\tdirect the first respondent,<br \/>\nthe Municipal Corporation of Delhi, to refer the application<br \/>\ndated  20th   April,  1967   along  with  the  lay-out\tplan<br \/>\naccompanying it\t to its\t Standing Committee and the Standing<br \/>\nCommittee will\tdispose of  the application expeditiously in<br \/>\naccordance with\t law. The  appellant is\t not entitled to any<br \/>\nfurther relief\tat this\t stage. In  the\t circumstances,\t the<br \/>\nparties will bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>N. V. K.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">1083<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 653, 1981 SCR (1)1073 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. PETITIONER: CHET RAM VASHIST Vs. RESPONDENT: MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI &amp; ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT05\/11\/1980 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. REDDY, O. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; ... on 5 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; ... on 5 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1980-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-24T10:47:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980\",\"datePublished\":\"1980-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-24T10:47:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\"},\"wordCount\":3005,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\",\"name\":\"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; ... on 5 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1980-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-24T10:47:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; ... on 5 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; ... on 5 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1980-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-24T10:47:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980","datePublished":"1980-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-24T10:47:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980"},"wordCount":3005,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980","name":"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; ... on 5 November, 1980 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1980-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-24T10:47:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chet-ram-vashist-vs-municipal-corporation-of-delhi-on-5-november-1980#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chet Ram Vashist vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi &amp; &#8230; on 5 November, 1980"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}