JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against the orders passed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 refusing to accord sanction to the petitioner to make certain construction. The orders have been passed under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act. 2. The relevant facts are that petition submitted a plan to re-erect a pucca house in place of a kacha one standing over plat no. 1662. The petitioner gave a notice to the Municipal Board of his intention to make that construction. Upon that notice a report was called from the Nazul Clerk and Overseer. The said Nazul Overseer submitted a report dated 22-2-1973 stating that the proposed construction fell over plot no. 1662 which belongs to the petitioner and that no part of the proposed constructions would cover any Nazul land. The report further stated that the plan was in accordance with the Municipal bye-laws. The Municipal Board, however, by its order dated 18-5-1973 refused to sanction the plan on the ground that a civil suit instituted by the petitioner against the Municipal Board was pending. The petitioner filed an appeal under the provisions of U.P. Municipalities Act against this order. The Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the Municipal Board was right in refusing to sanction the plan in view of the pendency of the civil suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the respondents have committed a patent illegality in refusing to sanction the plan. It was urged that the ground upon which the sanction has been refused is on the face of it entirely irrelevant. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we arc of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the respondents nos. 1 and 2 have refused the sanction on a ground which is on the face of it irrelevant. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that a part of the proposed construction would fall on plot no. 1661 which is a nazul plot and that consequently the plan could not be sanctioned. This plea was not raised before the courts below. Further more the Appellate Court itself has observed that the suit is in respect of plot no. 1661. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that a part of the proposed construction would fall on plot no. 1661 which is a nazul plot and that consequently the plan could not be sanctioned. This plea was not raised before the courts below. Further more the Appellate Court itself has observed that the suit is in respect of plot no. 1661. From a persual of the order passed by the Appellate Court, it seems clear that even the appellate court was of the view that the purposed construction would fall over plot no. 1662 which, admittedly, belongs to the petitioner. 5. In view of the fact, therefore, that the civil suit is in respect of another plot namely, plot no. 1661, the pendency of the suit could rot afford any justification or ground for refusing the plan. The pendency of the suit was only the ground on which the sanction has been refused. That was obviously wrong. 6. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by respondents nos. 1 and 2 respectively on 18-5-1973 and 27-7 1973 are quashed. We further direct respondents no.1 to sanction the plan submitted by the petitioner. The parties will bear their own costs.