IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2906 of 2026 Decided on: 28. 07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sushant Aggarwal …..Petitioner Versus Chief Secretary-cum-Additional Chief Secretary (Town & Country Planning) to the Govt. of H.P and others. . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 2. Proceedings under Sections 253 and 254 of Himachal Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 read 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 with section 39A of the Himachal Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1977 (the Act in short), were initiated by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Solan, District Solan against respondents No. 3 and 4 on the complaint of the petitioner and one Smt. Neeta Singh. The complainant had alleged that private respondents had constructed their building in an unauthorized manner without following the Municipal Corporation norms. Order on this complaint/proceedings was passed by the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Solan on 13.11.2025, concluding that there was no violation remaining on the spot; All compliances had been performed; Building had been constructed by respondents No. 3 and 4 as per the approved map and no unauthorized construction remained on the spot, though the building was still under construction. Proceedings against respondents No.3 and 4 were concluded with direction to the respondents to complete the remaining work strictly as per revised approved map. They were also to obtain necessary completion certificate. The order also directed that no deviation etc. shall be allowed in future and respondents No. 3 and 4 must follow the approved plan, failing which, necessary action was to be taken as per law. 3 Present petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order under Section 32 of the Act. The Chief Secretary (Town & Country Planning) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, decided the appeal on 17.01.2026 with the order that no case of planning permission either in favour of the appellant (present petitioner) or private respondents (respondents No.3 and 4 herein), shall be proposed by the Municipal Corporation Solan unless the parties establish their clear title to their respective shares. The Municipal Corporation was also reserved liberty to revoke the planning permission in terms of Section 37 of the Act, if deemed appropriate. Operative portion of the order is as under:- “Therefore, keeping in view the above mentioned facts and detailed submissions made during the course of arguments, the planning permission for composition of offences accorded by respondent Municipal Corporation, Solan dated 13.11.2025. It is made absolutely clear that no cases of planning permission(s) either in favour of the Appellant or private respondents shall be processed by respondent Corporation unless the parties establish their clear title to their respective shares. The respondent Corporation is at liberty to revoke the planning permission in terms of Section 37 of the HP Town & Country Planning Act, 1977 (as amended up to 2024), if deems appropriate. The present order shall have no bearings upon any pending civil litigation between the contesting parties 4 in any Court of law, if any and the parties shall not claim equity thereupon. The file be consigned to the record room. Copy of this order be provided to the contesting parties accordingly.” 3. Reply filed by the Municipal Corporation Solan is to the effect that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2026, show cause notice has already been issued to respondents No. 3 and 4 on 30.03.2026 under the provisions of Section 37 of the Act, directing them to produce clear and valid title documents of the land in question. The show cause notice also alleges that at the time of obtaining planning permission by respondents No. 3 and 4 for the land in question a false affidavit “declaring that no litigation as pending with respect to the said land” was submitted to the office of Municipal Corporation Solan. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation Solan, submits that the proceedings pursuant to the said cause notice are still going on and respondents No. 3 and 4 have participated in the said proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 also acknowledges the above position. Learned counsel submits that no construction is being carried out by respondents No. 3 and 4 in view of proceedings initiated by the Municipal Corporation Solan under Section 37 of the 5 Act against the respondents. 5. Taking note of above, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that respondent-Municipal Corporation Solan, shall decide the proceedings initiated by it under Section 37 of the Town & Country Planning Act, 1977, against respondents No. 3 an 4, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from today and till decision of the aforesaid proceedings, construction work shall not be carried out by respondents No. 3 and 4. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 28, 2026 Judge R.Atal