R.S Mongia, J. — This writ petition has been filed by Pritam Singh son of Ishar Singh, Jagbachan Singh and Jagjivan Singh sons of Niranjan Singh. It has been mentioned that the petitioners are owners in possession of plots No. 92 and 93, measuring 220 sq. yards, situated in village Sunderpur, tehsil Thanesar, district Kurukshetra, which is within the Municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Thanesar. The petitioners submitted a plan for getting sanction of the Municipal Committee for construction of a house on the plots mentioned above. Requisite fee etc. were also deposited by the petitioners on February 5, 1992. However, the sanction was declined on July 13, 1992, on the ground that the plots in question fell within the controlled area of Kurukshetra and, therefore, the permission had to be obtained from the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana, as per the requirement under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Thanesar, on November 19, 1992. The petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition in this Court C.W.P No. 1696 of 1993 (Jagbachan Singh v. Deputy commissioner, Kurukshetra etc.) but on the preliminary objection having been taken by the respondents that a revision petition lay, the petitioners were relegated to that remedy. As no decision was taken in the revision petition, the petitioners filed that present writ petition on May 30, 1994. It has been averred in this writ petition that a number of houses have already been constructed by the inhabitants of the locality after obtaining sanction from the Municipal Committee. Even plan submitted by one of the petitioners, Jagbachan Singh earlier was sanctioned by the Municipal Committee and the moment he started raising construction the sanction was withdrawn and the construction already raised was ordered to be demolished. That plot of Jagabachan Singh adjoins the present. The writ petition of Jagbachan Singh - C.W.P No. 11446 of 1992 - challenging the order of withdrawal of sanction was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on January 19, 1993, in which it was held that since the plot in question in that case fell within the Municipal limits, the provisions of the ‘Act’ did not apply to the land within the Municipal limits.
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Municipal, Committee, it is admitted that the limits of the respondent-Municipality were extended vide Notification No. 25/11/82-C-I dated October 1, 1984, and the land of the petitioners in dispute was included within the limits of the Municipality.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents-Municipal Committee argued that the provisions of the ‘Act’ over-ride the provisions contained in any Other law including the provisions in the Municipal Act and, therefore, the sanction of the plan has to be under the ‘Act’ and not under the provisions of the Municipal Act. No provision has been brought to out notice to substantiate this submission. Section 23 of the Act does not provide that the ‘Act’ shall have over-riding effect over the Municipal Act.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the plots in dispute admittedly fall within the Municipal limits, the question of application of the provision of the ‘Act’ does not arise. The reliance is on the Division Bench judgment in Jagbachan Singh's case (C.W.P 11446/92) referred to above. In the said judgment, it was observed as under:
“The only ground urged during the course of argument to sustain the impugned order is that the site plan was approved by the Municipal Committee in violation of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision of the Act are not applicable to the site in dispute as the site in dispute falls within the municipal limits. In order to support the submission, he relies on 1989 PLJ 35. There is no gainsaying nor has it been disputed as a question of the fact before us that the site in dispute falls within the Municipal limits and the Act does not apply to the site in dispute. The site plan was approved by the Municipal Committee.”
5. As observed above, learned counsel for the respondent could not bring to our notice any provision of the ‘Act’ which says that the Act is applicable even to the properties situated within the Municipal limits. As observed in the above-said judgment of the Division Bench, the Act is not applicable to the properties within the Municipal limits. Since the plots in question are within the Municipal limits, it is only the Municipal Committee which is to sanction the plan.
6. Consequently following the above-said Division Bench judgment of this court in Jagbachan Singh's case (C.W.P 11446/92) we allow this writ petition and direct the Municipal Committee, Thanesar, to sanction the plan in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Rules/Bye-laws, if any, and be not influenced by the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. Let these directions be carried out within a period of two months of the receipt of copy of this order from this Court or a certified copy of the same from the petitioners.
Petition accepted.