2025:HHC:6759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2678 of 2024 Decided on: 20.03.2025 Hari Singh … Petitioner Versus State of HP and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atharv, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Addl. AG for respondent No. 1-State. : Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for respondent No. 2. : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned acts of the respondent No.2 above stated contained in letter dated 2.2.2024, Annexure P-11 annexed supra, may kindly be quashed and set aside and after quashing and setting the same, respondent No.2 may be directed to immediately and forthwith consider and approve the map as is submitted by the petitioner for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6759 construction of his house without any further delay, as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) That perusal of the facts of the case would depict that construction of the petitioner has been delayed now for about 03 years, as such, it is humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs to be paid by respondent No.2 as is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has purchased a parcel of land, on which, he intends to construct a house. For the construction thereof, necessary permission is required from Municipal Corporation, Shimla. The petitioner submitted a map/building plan for approval but as an objection has been raised by respondent No. 3 with regard to approval of map of the petitioner, the map of the petitioner stands returned by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land which is owned by the petitioner has got nothing to do with the property of the private respondent. He further submitted that the private respondent is raising objection with regard to approval of the map submitted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that there is a dispute with regard to path between the private respondent and one Shri Sant Ram, qua which there is a 3 2025:HHC:6759 litigation pending between them in the High Court. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Municipal Corporation, without any due application of mind and without appreciating that path in issue has got nothing to do with the sanction of the map of the petitioner, has stalled the approval of the map of the petitioner. He accordingly submitted that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to process the map of the petitioner in accordance with law and grant necessary approval for construction. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has submitted that the proposed map submitted by the petitioner has been returned back for the reason that as the road shown by the petitioner leading to his premises is in dispute in terms of the objection raised by the private respondent, therefore, the Corporation is not taking any action as the matter is sub -judice. He further submitted that the Municipal Corporation in fact has returned the map to the petitioner so that necessary clarification in this regard can be submitted by him. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that there is no intent on the part of said respondent to stall the approval of the building plan of the petitioner. He submitted that as there is a dispute between him and a third party with regard to the passage, therefore, he has brought the factum of 4 2025:HHC:6759 dispute of passage into the notice of the Municipal Corporation. 6. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure P-9 addressed by the respondent-Corporation to respondent No. 3 as well as Annexure P-11, dated 02.02.2024, addressed by the Corporation to the petitioner and submitted that as the road which leads to the property of the petitioner is not part of the disputed land qua which the Regular Second Appeal is pending, therefore, the act of returning back the plan to the petitioner is not justified in law. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that this is more so in light of demarcation Annexure P-8 where satisfaction of the parties stands recorded. 7. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 3 as also learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, as prayed for, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner will forthwith submit his building plan for approval to the Municipal Corporation and in case, path leading to the house of the petitioner has got nothing to do with the land, which is the subject matter of Regular Second Appeal, then Regular Second Appeal shall not be construed as a bar by the Corporation in processing the map of the petitioner in accordance with law. 5 2025:HHC:6759 8. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. It is expected that as from the date of submission of the building plan by the petitioner, action thereupon shall be taken by the Corporation expeditiously and appropriate order be passed thereupon within a period of six weeks. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 20, 2025 (narender)