D. P. WADHWA. J. (Rule D. B.) ( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioners, in effect, seek direction to the first respondent Municipal Corporation, of-Delhi (for short the MCD ) to extend, under S. 341 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short the Act ), the period of their building plan sanctioned earlier in a certain group housing scheme. The second respondent was at the relevant time Commissioner of the first res- pondent and had refused extension of the period. He has been impleaded as a party as his act of refusal termed as mala fide. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this petition, respondents Nos. 3 to 15 were impleaded as partics by order dated 21-9-1981. Respondent No. 3 is the association of respondents Nos. 4 to 15. The petitioners, as owners of the group housing scheme, had earlier sold various buildings, numbering 18, to respondents Nos. 4 to 15 and others, who later formed themselves into an association under the name of the third respondent. We will collectively describe these respondents as the association . These respondents are opposing the grant of any extension of time. ( 3 ) SHORN of unnecesary details, facts may be stated in brief. Standing Committee of the MCD approved the lay-out plan of the group housing scheme on a site situated on the junction of Alipur Road and Underhill Road. Delhi. This was done keeping in view the guidelines laid n the master plan a. nd the zonal plan of the area. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA), a body constituted under the Delhi Development Act 1957, had recommended that the area of the plot being more than one acre group housing with maximum of 37 flats might be allowed on the plot and that out of these two flat- would have to be reserved for service personnel, 11. 5 per cent of the plot was to be considered for parks playgrounds and tot-lots, and about 15 per cent of the land was to be used for providing zonal plan roads. The total area of the plot is 2. 367 acres and after leaving area required for road widening the net area is 2. 25 acres. The petitioners proposed to build 32 Dwelling Units (DUs) with two service personnel units. The total area of the plot is 2. 367 acres and after leaving area required for road widening the net area is 2. 25 acres. The petitioners proposed to build 32 Dwelling Units (DUs) with two service personnel units. The density as per the master plan is 50 persons per acre whereas the petitioners had proposed 60 persons per acre which was higher than the permissible limit but was permissible in group housing provided however overall density of the zone was maintained. Following are the particulars which were noted in the resolution No. 1184 of the Standing Commitee dated 16-2-1965 by which approval was granted :- otal area of the site. . . . . 2. 361 acres Net area after leaving are required for road widening. roposed coverag one block 3816 30 sq ft. (a)Proposed coverag on ground floor for Full blocks and one block of approximately half or lull block 21009 90 sq. ft. (b) Proposed coverage on 1st floor. 210009 90 sq. ft. (c) Proposed coverage. on 2nd floor 21009 90 sq. ft. Coverage on all the floors 63029 7 sq. ft. Floor-Area Ratio 63029 70sq. fi Flats proposed. . . 32 Nos. +2 service per. sonnel 34 9. Populationproposed. . . 34x45153 persons 10. . Density proposed. . 68 persons/per acre 11. The area under parks and parking 19280 sq. ft. 12. The area under roods 18540 sq. ft 13. Area of open spaces. . . . 39187 87sq. ft. Before sanctioning the Standing Commitiee had con idered the zonal recommendations, DD a recommeadations, the ownership of the plot, services, sewer and storm water drains to be provided and the like. The group housing scheme wa recommended subject to the following conditions :- "1. That the building plans will have to be got. approved by the Building Department in accordance with building bye-laws. 2. That all the services will have to be provided to the entire satisfaction of the Commissioner within a period of one year. 3. That a security amount, at the rate of Rs, 9. 25 paise per sq. yd. on the gross area will be deposited gainst proposed development work. " ( 4 ) THEN the owners submitted building plans which were sanctioned by the MCD by its letter dated 25-7-1966. The petitioners were permitted to construct 21 single unit type DUs on 22 plots in the group housing complex. 25 paise per sq. yd. on the gross area will be deposited gainst proposed development work. " ( 4 ) THEN the owners submitted building plans which were sanctioned by the MCD by its letter dated 25-7-1966. The petitioners were permitted to construct 21 single unit type DUs on 22 plots in the group housing complex. Only 18 such units were, however, constructed as per the sanctioned plans. 10 such units were of A type bearing numbers A-3 to A-8 and A-17 to A-20, and 8 units were of B type bearing Nos. B-9 to B-J6. On their applications the petitioners were granted completion occupancy certificate by the MCD in respect of the 18 DUs. This was by letter dated 9-4-1969 of the MCD. We may note that the petitioners are the successors-in-interest of Smt. Gangawati in whose name earlier the lay-out plan had been sanctioned and the completion certificate issued. The petitioners, therefore, had not constructed 3 DUs on the remaining 4 plots. In 1969 itself, they submitted revised lay-out and building plans for sanction, to the MCD for the remaining 3 DUs, one on black Nos. A-1 and A-2 and second and third on block Nos. C-21 and C-22, showing increased ground coverage but, however, remainingwithin the permissible limits. The revised building plans were duly sanctioned on 8-7-1989. The petitioners say that though they started the construction in terms of the revised building plans and completed the structure, they could not complete the building due to paucity of funds within the period of one year as prescribed in the letter granting sanction. Between October 1970 and March 1972, the petitioners sold the 18 DUs built. earlier by 18 sale deeds to different persons who. as noted above, formed themselves into an association being the third respondent. Petitioners say that when thess 18 DUs were sold, structure on blocks A-1 and A-2 and C-21 and C-22 were complete and that though they did not need any fresh sanction or revalidation of the building plans for carrying out the finishing work, they, by way of abundant caution and to facilitate the availability of dement and other building material at controlled rates, applied for revalidation of their building plans and extension of time as per S. 341 of the Act. These plains were revalidated by the MCD by it- letter dated 14-7-1972 and period of construction was extended up 20-7-1973. These plains were revalidated by the MCD by it- letter dated 14-7-1972 and period of construction was extended up 20-7-1973. Petitioners complain that purchasers of the 18 DUs made unauthorised constructions in their respective DUs and violated prescribed norms of density and coverage. Reference is made to various litiffations between the owners and the association find its members. It is stated that the sole object was to debar the petitioners from building on blocks A-l and A-2 and C-21 and C-22. Petitioners further say that though they succeeded in the litigation filed by the association, thev still could not complete the finishing work of the structures and again due to financial strineency on 24-8-1974 974 thev made another application for revalidation of the building plans to finish the work. Petitioners asain assert that it was not necessary for them to seek revalidation in terms of the building bye-laws of the MCD. On 3-10-1974 the petitioners were informed that their application for revalidation had been rejected. No reasons were communicated to the petitioners of the rejection. The petitioners, however, came to know that the rejection -was on certain inconsequential grounds including non-payment of revalidation fee. The petitioners made several representations and these came up for consideration before the Building Plan Committee (BPC) of the MCD. Meanwhile, the association came on the scene and opposed the revalidation of the building plans: After examining the case in depth, BPC passed resolution recommending extension of time for one year. This, it is stated, was done on 17-7-1979. Petitioners, however, did not receive any formal letter conveying the sanction revalidation. They ultimately came to know that on the intervention of a certain municipal councillor the Commissioner withheld issuance of the letter allowing revalidation and instead had the matter examined. By this time, the second respondent had taken over as the Commissioner. The second respondent made the following note dated 17-1-1980 on the file :- "there has been a deviation from the sanctioned Group Housing Scheme approved by the Standing Committee vide resolution Nos 118411446 dated 16-2-1965 and 31-3-1965. The number of dwelling units now existing at site is 36 instead of 34 and also the individual holdings have been created by selling land attached to the flats which is in contravention of Group Housing concept. The proposals, therefore, cannot be sanctioned in the present form as it violates Master Plan provisions and Zoning Regulation?. . The number of dwelling units now existing at site is 36 instead of 34 and also the individual holdings have been created by selling land attached to the flats which is in contravention of Group Housing concept. The proposals, therefore, cannot be sanctioned in the present form as it violates Master Plan provisions and Zoning Regulation?. . (ii) The C. C. issued by the Building Department for the 18 flats sanctioned earlier appears to be wrong and responsibility be fixed for the same. Necessary action in respect of. unauthorised constructions carried out at site be also taken (iii) The proposal has to be considered as a fresh sanction as the earlier sanction accorded in the year 1975 has lapsed. Besides. I understand, there is a stay order in this case which may be verified and examined. " The matter was re-examined by a Committes. on 20-5-19. 8q consiting of Deputy Commissioner. (L), Municipal Engineer, Town Planner and Law Officer. They recorded the following minates :-- "since it is always desire to reflect the factual position in the reply to be filed before the Court, the facts have been. gone into again. The following points have been observed :-- 1. THE promoters baa sold out flats to the 18 individuals alongwith the land holdings which amounts to sub-division of land into customary plots which is in violation of the approved lay out plan of Group Housing Scheme and the zoning regulations of the Master Plan (p 58 of the Master Plan ). 2. As per the sanctioned group housing, 34 dwelling unite were permissible including two for service personnel. The owners promoters got the building plans sanctioned for the construction of 18 dwelling units. However, they constructed the building in. such a manner that 36 dwelling units exist at the site. The matter regarding issue of wrong completion certification is being looked into and responsibility fixed. Sh. Russel of the DDA vide his letter No. F. 3 (297) 63- MP dated 28-4-79- (P/83) has also intimated the Corporation that after inspection of these flats they have found that the construction has been done in violation of the provisions of the Master Plan as each floor is designed in such a way that each floor is independently used as a self-contained flat which has resulted in the increase in density. 3. 3. Since the promoters have already sold out portions of the land to individual kat owners, as such he is not the owner of the whole land in the group housing "cheme and further construction in his fa- your cannot be considered 4. The objections contained in Shri Russel s letter refferred to arrive are material. In case. however, DDA decides to grant relaxation, the matter can be considered. A- regards the contradictions, pointed out by L. A. in his note dated 14-3-80 in connection with the reply filed earlier in another case and the reply to be filed now in the present case, since fresh facts have emerged after proper seruting. The factual position as above may, therefore, be placed before the Court. " ( 5 ) IT appears thereafter the petitioners were communicated the rejection of revalidation of their building plans. The petitioners then filed a civil suit but withdrew the same with liberty to file a fresh suit. This was on 15-7-1980. Instead, however, they filed the present petition. ( 6 ) ON Rule being issued, the first respondent filed its counteraffidavit. As noted above, respondents Nos. 3 to 15 were impleaded as party in these proceedings. On an application filed by the petitioners (C. M. No. 634182), this court by order dated 7-4-1982 made the following; order :- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the main structure of the building is already ready and the same was done in accordance with the sancfioned plan. In order to save thebuilding from further damage, I restrain the Respondent-Corporation from interfering with the carrying out the work of plastering, flooring, woodwork, electrical and sanitary fittings on the structures built on plots Al" A2 and C21 and C22. Anand Vihar Group Housing Complex, 16 Alipur Road, Delhi. As is stated in the application, his work will be carried out at the risk and respondentbility of the petitioner and it will not be open to the petitioner to take this defence at the final hearing of the writ petition. The petitioner is also restrained from inducting any buyer or tenant or occupier in the building till the petition is finally disposed of. The petitioner will not carry cut any work which is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Besides the plastering flooring, woodwork. The petitioner is also restrained from inducting any buyer or tenant or occupier in the building till the petition is finally disposed of. The petitioner will not carry cut any work which is not in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Besides the plastering flooring, woodwork. electrical and sanitary fixings, the petitioner will not be permitted to carry on any other work in the building including the partition walls. C. M. stands disposed of. " ( 7 ) THE matter was then heard by B. N. Kirpal. J. . who. by his order dated 27-2-1987, referred the matter to a larger bench. He did not agree with the view expressed by S. B. Wad, J" on the interpretation of S. 341 of the Act in the case of (1) Raghbir Singh and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr (AIR 1981 Delhi 246 ). Hence, the matter before u. ( 8 ) IT is appropriate to note the relevant provisions of the Act at this stage. Chapter XV deals with streets and there are various sub-headings undec this Chapter. One such sub-heading is private Streets (Ss. 312 to 316 ). ( 9 ) UNDER S. 312 if the owner of any land utilises, sells leases out or otherwise disposes of such land for the construction of buildings thereon, he shall lay down and make a street or streets giving access to the plots into which the land may be divided and connecting with an existing public or private street. Before the owner, however, acts under S. 312, he, under S. 313, has to get his lay-out plan of the land approved. For this purpose, he is to send to the Commissioner a written application with a lay-out plan of the land showing the prescribed particulars. The lay-out plan is to be sanctioned by the Standing Committee of the MCD. Before the owner, however, acts under S. 312, he, under S. 313, has to get his lay-out plan of the land approved. For this purpose, he is to send to the Commissioner a written application with a lay-out plan of the land showing the prescribed particulars. The lay-out plan is to be sanctioned by the Standing Committee of the MCD. Under sub-s. (4) such sanction shall be refused- (A) if the particulars shown in the lay-out plan would conflict with any arrangements which have been made or which are in the opinion of the Standing Committee likely to be made for carrying out any general scheme of development of Delhi whether contained in the master plan or a zonal development plan prepared for Delhi or not; or (B) if the said lay-out plan does not conform to the provisions of this Act and bye-laws made thereunder; or (C) if any street proposed in the plan is not designed so as to connect at one end with a street which is already open. Sub-s. (5) prohibits any person from utilising. selling or other wise dealing with any land or lay-out or making any new street without or otherwise than in conformity with the orders of the Standing Committee. Any breach of this provision will make the owner liable to punishment under S. 461 of the Act. The fine prescribed is Rs. 500 and daily fine at the rate of Rs. 25. 10. Chapter XVI deals with Building Regulations (Ss. 331 to 349 ). S. 332 prohibits erection of any building without sanction. It says that no person shall erect any building except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner, nor otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and the bye-laws made under the Act in relation to the election of building. Under S. 333 every person who intends to erect a building shall apply for sanction by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Commissioner in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed by bye-laws made in tins behalf. The no ice is to be accompanied by such document and plans as may be prescribed. S. 336 prescribes when Commissioner shall sanction the erection of a building or refuse such sanction. Then sub-ss. (2), (3) and (4) of S. 337 are relevant. The no ice is to be accompanied by such document and plans as may be prescribed. S. 336 prescribes when Commissioner shall sanction the erection of a building or refuse such sanction. Then sub-ss. (2), (3) and (4) of S. 337 are relevant. Under these the owner is to commence the erection of :he building within 0113 year of the date: of sanction and he has to give notice of such commencement to the MCD. If he does not so commence the construction of the building within one year he will have to apply for fresh sanction. S. 3?s deals with the situation where sanction has been accorded under misrepresentation. This lection reads as under :-- "338. If at any time after the sanction of any building or work has been accorded, the Commissioner is satisfied that. such sanction was accorded in consequence of any material misrepresenation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under sections 333. 334 and 335, he_may by order in writing cancel for reasons to be recorded such sanction and any building or work commenced, erected or done shall be deemed to have been commenced, erected or done without such sanction Provided that before making any such order he Commissioner shall give reasonable opportunity to the person affected as to why such order should not be made. " S. 340 contains provisions as building and work on either side of a new street. Then come S. 341 presentcribing period for completion of building or work and this section is as under :- "341. The Commissioner, when sanctioning the erection of a building or execution of a awork, shall specify a reasonable period after the commencement of the building or work within which the building or work is to be completed and if the building or work is not completed within the period so specified, it shall not be continued thereafter without fresh sanction obtained in the manner heieinbefore provided, unless the Commissioner or application made therefore has allowed an extension of that period. " S. 343 provides for a situation where order of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works could be made by the Commissioner. This is where erection of any building or execution of any work has been, commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in S. 336 or. " S. 343 provides for a situation where order of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works could be made by the Commissioner. This is where erection of any building or execution of any work has been, commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in S. 336 or. in contravention of any condition subject to which such sanction has been accorded or in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or bye-laws made there under. Under S. 344, in somewhat similar situation, the Commissioner can order stoppage of buildings or works. Under S. 345. the Commissioner has powe to require alteration of woks in certain situations. S. 346 deals with completion certificates and Sub-s. (1) of this section is as under :- "346. (1) Every person who employs a licensed architect or engineer or a person approved by the Commissioner to design or erect a building or execute any work shall, within one month after the completion of the erection of the building or execution of the work, deliver or "end or cause to be delivered or sent to the Commissioner a notice in writing of such competion accompanied by a certificate in the form prescribed by bye-laws made inthis behalf and shall give to the Commissioner all necessary facilities for the inspection of such building or work. " Other section s appearing in Chapter XVI are not relevant to the present controversy. It may. however, be noted that various penalties are provided for infringement of Ss. 332. 333 (1), 337 (4 ). 343. 344. 345 and 346 (1) and (2 ). In sonic cases. even daily fine can be imposed. ( 10 ) BUILDING bye-laws were framed by the Central Government in 1959 in exercise of the powers conferred by Ss. 333. 334, 335, 336, 346 and sub-s. (1) of S. 481 read with sub-s. (2) of S. 481 of the Act. Bye-law 11 provides that the sanction for erection of a building is to be communicated in the form given in Schedule III to the bye-law:. It says that the sanction has been granted subject to certain conditon given in the form and one of the conditions is that the erection of the building shall be commenced within one year of the date of the sanction and completed not later than one year from. It says that the sanction has been granted subject to certain conditon given in the form and one of the conditions is that the erection of the building shall be commenced within one year of the date of the sanction and completed not later than one year from. the date of the commencement. During the course of argument, it was stated that building bye-laws had since been amended. in 1983. With reference to ihe building bye-laws in force, the MCD has issued certain guidelines. Under the amended bye-laws, building permit (sanction) shall remain valid for two years from the date of sanction for residential, industrial and commercial buildings upto four storeys and three years for larger complexes and multi-storeyed buildings and institutional buildings. (Now this may not be correct as under S. 341 reasonable period is to be specified not from the date of the sanction but after the commencement of the building. In this connection S. 337 is also to be referred to. ). Building permits can now be revalidated for a period of one year at a time from the date of expiry of the validity of the original permit en payment of required revalidation fees. There is also a provision for regularisation of unauthorised construction done after expiry of the sanctioned period and without getting the sanction revalidated if permtted under building bye-laws subject, however, to payment of certain penalties. As is apparent the building bye-laws have nut been framed with reference to S. 34} of the Act and reference to. these, therefore, regarding fixing of time for completion of the work will not be relevant. Power under S. 341 is to be exercised by the Commissioner. It is he who has to specify a reasonable period for completion of the work after the commencement of the construction which is to commence within one year of the sanction of the building (S. 337 (2) ). The ma. ster plan for Delhi was prepared by the DDA under the Delhi Development Act 1957 and was approved by the Central Government. It is a statutory document. Among other things, it lays down guidelines for group housing schemes relating to gross residential density, maximum coverage. maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) with reference to various zones and areas in Delhi. ster plan for Delhi was prepared by the DDA under the Delhi Development Act 1957 and was approved by the Central Government. It is a statutory document. Among other things, it lays down guidelines for group housing schemes relating to gross residential density, maximum coverage. maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) with reference to various zones and areas in Delhi. As per the note appearing under the heading group Housing , group housing includes construction of a number of DUs, without customary division into streets and individual holdings, with a view to ensuring more distribution of space and creation of desirable environment. It also includes creation of several DUs out of one DU by partition. Before we note the arguments of the parties. we may examine Rashbir Singh s case so far it is relevant to the issue in the present case. In that case. sanction was granted for construction of three blocks A, B and C of a commercial building. This was on 2-12-1966. Block-, A and C were connected with block B. The owners constructed Blocks A and C and applied for completion cerificate. The could rioted that there was a dispute if completion certificate was issued as the MCD said there were certain deviations and unauthorised constructions, the owners however, claiming that there was deemed issuance of completion certificate under S. 346. After a gap of 13 years the owners applied for revalidation of original sanction plans and extension of time for construction of block B. The application was required on the grounds that the owners had not removed the unauthorised constructions earlier made and there was no provision of proper amenities for the commercial establishments and further that in 1976 there was amendment to the master plan whereby permissible covered area for construction of commercial establishments was reduced from earlier 60 per cent to 25 per cent. The court held that S. 341 provided that if the work was not completed within the period specified in the original sanction, the work could not be continued and that a fresh sanction was necessary and if it was not obtained, the original sanction would exhaust or lapse. It was observed that as the owners did not obtain fresh sanction nor did they obtain extension, the original sanction given on 2-12-1966 exhausted itself on 2-12-1967 a. it was for one year. It was observed that as the owners did not obtain fresh sanction nor did they obtain extension, the original sanction given on 2-12-1966 exhausted itself on 2-12-1967 a. it was for one year. It was held that thereafter here was no valid plan of which the extension could be sought and that too 12 years after the original sanction had lapsed. It was also held that the Commissioner had no authority to permit any extension as that would contravene the provisions of S. 341 and that a plan which had lapsed under the section could not be revalidated at all. The learned Judge was of the view that extension must be sought within the original period prescribed at the time of the sanction as after that the Commissioner would be functus officio. Against this judgment of the learned single Judge the owners filed Letters Patent Appeal. Tt is reported in (2) A. I. R 1982 Delhi 550. In this the Division Bench noted that it was not that revalidation was asked for for the first time after 13 years but that earlier the owners had applied for sanction for the period in June 1969 and that matter was considered by the BPC of the MCD which vide it decision dated 24-8-1971 decided that request for revalidation be rejected. The reason given was that the owners, had not demolished the existing structures and that as that was still in occunation of tenants, it was not proper to allow the owners to build further and it was also decided that the owners be allowed to retain the existing blocks and a notice under S. 338 be issued for revocation. The court noticed that the matter rested at that and 8 year after that the owners again applied for extension of the period. The Division Bench, however, did not consider the applicability of S. 341 to the tacl:s of that case and did not touch the observations of the, learned single Judge. It, however, upheld the view of the learned singh Judge that the order of the Deputy Commissioner of the MCD as a delegates under S. 491 of the Act granting or refusing to sanction the erection of a building was reviewable by the Commissioner. ( 11 ). We feel that the word revalidation is a misnomer. It is not used in S. 341. ( 11 ). We feel that the word revalidation is a misnomer. It is not used in S. 341. It has a different meaning altogether and does not mean extension of the period , the expression used in the section. We will, therefore, discard this word in our discussion. ( 12 ) THOUGH the arguments have been long drawn the points involved are not so complicated. These arc : (1) as to when an application for extension of the period under S. 341 is to be made and if the section exhausts itself after grant of one extension, and (2) what are the considerations which weigh for grant of extension of the period. ( 13 ) THE MCD, in brief, has justified its action on the grounds : (1) that there were unauthorised constructions in the group housing complex; (2) that there was sub-division of plots like customary plots, (3) that there was construction of 36 DUs when in the lay-out plan there was proposal to construct 34 DUs including 2 for service personnel; (4) that the petitioners were not owners of whole of the land covered under the lay-out plan; and (5), that the plans had lapsed. It was however, conceded that. after the expiry of the original period the sanctioned plan would not become invalid nor the construction made during the period would become illegal or unauthorised. It was submitted that any extension of time would be against the provisions of the Act, bye-laws and the master plan and that grant of mandamus as prayed for by the petitioners would only mean to perpetuate an illegality and would be against the law laid down in Raghbir Singh s case (supra ). It was also stated that the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact and accused the petitioners of laches. ( 14 ) THE association supported the stand taken by the MCD and added some more dimensions to it. (This. was, however, objected to by the petitioners ). The association questioned the right of the petitioners to file the present petition after heaving earlier filed a suit on the same cause of action and then withdrawing that. ( 14 ) THE association supported the stand taken by the MCD and added some more dimensions to it. (This. was, however, objected to by the petitioners ). The association questioned the right of the petitioners to file the present petition after heaving earlier filed a suit on the same cause of action and then withdrawing that. It pointed out various violations of the lay-out plan by the petitioners like construction of more DUs than proposed thus violating the policy regarding density, non construction of 2 DUs for the service personnel, and sub-division of plots in contravention of group housing scheme. It was stated that the building plans earlier submitted and which had been got sanctioned were contrary to the lay-out plan and the Commissioner had no authority to do that as S. 333 could not override S. 313 of the Act. The petitioners were charged for changing the orientation of the lay-out plan originally approved by the Standing Committee. It was then stated that in the garb of construction I DU the petitioners constructed two independent flats and wrongly styled the unit as duplex type. Reference was made to the meaning of the duplex type flat in Webster s Dictionary that such a flat should have private inner stair-way while in the present case the stairs were independent and outside. ( 15 ) TO us it appears that the provisions contained in Chapter XVI of the Act relating to building Regulations are regulatory in nature, and the Commissioner does not become functus officio after the expiry of the period fixed for completion of the building at the time of sanction and at least that would be so till completion certificate is granted under S. 346. In 3 State, of U. P. and Ors. v. Maharaja Dharmender Prasad Singh etc. (J. T. 1989 (1) S. C. (118), the Supreme Court was concerned with certain provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973. The word development in this Act means the carrying out of building engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over and under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and included re-development. The word building included any structure or erection or part of a structure or erection which was intended to be used for residential, industrial, commercial or ether purposes whether In actual use or not. The word building included any structure or erection or part of a structure or erection which was intended to be used for residential, industrial, commercial or ether purposes whether In actual use or not. The Supreme Court negatived the argument that statutory authority dispensing permissions for development under that Act could not revoke or cancel a permission once granted. The court observed that grant of permission was part of or incidental to the statutory power to regulate orderly development of the development Area under that Act under Regulatory Law-, and that the power to regulate with obligations and functions that went with and were incidental to it, were not spent or exhausted with the grant of permission. The court held that the power of regulation which strentched beyond and the mere grant of permission took within its sweep the power in appropriate cases, to revoke or cancel the permission as Incidental or supplemental to the power to grant. Otherwise if held, the plenitude of the power to regulate would be vilibled down or oven frustrated. ( 16 ) UNDER sub-s. (2) of S. 337, the owner is bound to erect the building in accordance with the sanction and also so as not to contravene any provisions of the Act or any other law or of any bye-law made thereunder. The owner has nevertheless to commence the erection of the building within one year of the date of the sanction and if he does not do so he has to apply for the sanction. Before, however, commencing the erection of a building, the owner is to give notice to the Commissioner of the proposed date of the commencement. Under S. 341 the Commissioner, at the time of granting sanction, has to specify a reasonable period after the commencement of the building within which the building is to be completed. To fix a reasonable time is the desertion of the Commissioner and this cannot be circumscibed by any building bye- laws framed by the Central Government or by any other authority. It may not, however, be possible for the Commissioner to specify a reasonable period in respect of each building at the time of sanction and he may, therefore, generally fix a period which he thinks reasonable keeping in view the extent of the construction. It may not, however, be possible for the Commissioner to specify a reasonable period in respect of each building at the time of sanction and he may, therefore, generally fix a period which he thinks reasonable keeping in view the extent of the construction. But then there is no reason why he cannot take into consideration subsequent events en ailing delay in construction and on that account extend the time. We do not find any limit on the power of the Commissioner to allow extension of the period. The prohibition under S. 341 is only to the extent that building operation shall not be continued if the owner had no valid sanction at that time. If the period originally fixed has expired it does not mean that the plan has become a dead document. It merely lies dorment and is reactivated with the grant of extension. The section does not contain any prohibition as to the number of extensions which could be granted. No specific guidelines may appear to have been laid in S. 341 as to under what circumstances extension of period should be granted but the guidelines appear to be inherent therein. The Commissioner is to specify a reasonable period for the completion of the building and. as noted above, at the initial stage he may fix time considering the nature of the biulding. For varying reasons building may not be completed, for example, non-availability of building material, paucity of funds, bereavement in the family, illness, and the like. If the owner is unable to complete the building for any of these reasons, the Commissioner can always extend the time to a reasonable limit. It, therefore, cannot be said as a proposition of law that not more than none application could be made for extension of the period of construction. Any other construction on this section would mean putting fetters on the discretion of the Commissioner for extension of the time which does not appear to us to be the intention of the law. If the building is not completed within the period originally fixed. It is not that the owner has a choice either to apply for a fresh sanction or to applyfor extension of the period. If the Commissioner on an application for extension of the period has allowed extension, there is no necessity to obtain a fresh sanction. If the building is not completed within the period originally fixed. It is not that the owner has a choice either to apply for a fresh sanction or to applyfor extension of the period. If the Commissioner on an application for extension of the period has allowed extension, there is no necessity to obtain a fresh sanction. Extension of period is the rule rather than exception. We do not see what particular advantage is gained by the MCD in requiring the owner to apply for fresh sanction except to demand more fee and requiring the owner ti undergo all the processes in getting the sanction. We think liberal construction is what is required as to the applicability of S. 341. If the building is not completed within the originally fixed period it Is not that that construction becomes unauthorised at any point of time. We think it s the interest of al concerned that the building is completed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. We do not mean to lay down that an application for extension of period can be made at any time after the original period has expired but that must be made within a reasonable period and as to what is the reasonable period would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It could be tint in the meanwhile there has been change of building bye-laws or other such similar causes. For the purpose of extension of the period same considerations cannot be again gone into as were required at the time or original sanction. The Commissioner may. however, refuse extension of the period if he finds that construction has been carried on in contravention of the sanctioned plan. He in such cases. has power not only to require stoppage of building works but also to order demolition, (Ss. 343 and 344 ). The Commissioner has also power to require alteration of works if he finds that construction has been without or contrary to the sanction or in contravention of any conditions of the sanction or any of the provisions of the Act or any bye-law (S. 345 ). If. however, the Commissioner find", that original sanction had been accorded under certain misrepresentation fraudulent statements he has. If. however, the Commissioner find", that original sanction had been accorded under certain misrepresentation fraudulent statements he has. under S. 338, power to cancel the sanction and in that case the building or the structure as the case may be shall be deemed to have been commenced, erected or. done without such sanction. Before, however, exercising power under this section the Commissioner shall grant reasonable opportunity to the person concerned. Unless the Commissioner lakes action under S. 338 and grants an opportunity to the owner against the proposed action, we do not think that on those considerations the Commissioner can withhold extension of the period. ( 17 ) IN the present case no action has been taken under sub- s. (5) of S. 313 for any contravention of the lay-out plan. No action has also been taken on the ground that the sanction accoided earlier for construction of 21 units, when 18 units were constructed and now for the construction of 3 units (A-1 A-2 and C-21 and C -22), was accorded in consequence of any misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained in the notice given or information furnished under Ss. 333, 334 and 335. These plans, therefore, remain, validly sanctioned. If that be so. we see no reason why the extension of period now could not be granted when the considerations on which it had been refused were germane to the original sanction. The petitioners could not be deprived their right of being given reasonable opportunity as required under S . 338 and refused extension of the period. It is. its not the case of the MCD that constructions have been made in contravention of the sanctioned plans. So long no action is taken under S. 338. 343. 344 and 345 of the Act, there is no reason why extension of period could not be granted. We are unable to agree with the proposition hat any application for extension of time should be made within the period of validity of the original sanction or that only one application for extension could be made. On these point-- we are in respectful disagreement with the view expressed in Rashbir Singh s case (supra ). We are unable to agree with the proposition hat any application for extension of time should be made within the period of validity of the original sanction or that only one application for extension could be made. On these point-- we are in respectful disagreement with the view expressed in Rashbir Singh s case (supra ). ( 18 ) WE do not want to go into the Question if the petitioners in fact bulit 36 DUs originally instead of 18 as claimed by them or there has been customary sub-division of plots or other breaches of the lay-out plan have been committed. If that be so. there are sufficient provisions in the law requiring the petitioners and others to conform to the lav-out plan etc. There is nothing new which has come to the notice of the MCD as the time of grant of second extension of period. The interim order made in these proceedings and reproducer above would show that structures are complete in terms of the sanctioned plan and permission was granted by the court to plaster the walls, complete the flooring and fix the doors, etc. The structure cannot be demolished as it is not unauthorised. It is submitted on behalf of the association that the petitioners are trustees in respect of construction on blocks C-21 and C-22 a.- earlier DUs were to be constructed on that area tor service personnel for the use of members of the group housing complex. That is, however, not the question which falls for consideration in these proceedings. For similar reasons we do not find any substance in the rejection of the MCD on the ground that since the petitioners are not the owners of whole of the land under the group housing scheme they cannot be granted extension. There is no dispute that the petitioners are owners of the land on which three units, i. e. AI-A2. C-21 and C-22, are now being built. In the note dated 17-1-1980 it has been mentioned by the second respondent that completion cerfificates earlier granted in respect of 18 DUsappeared to be wrong and that responsibility be fixed for the same. Nothing has been said on affidavit as to what action, if any, was taken though it was stated during the course of arguments by Mr. Sabharwal that inquiry was held and the building engineer concerned was awarded some punishment. Nothing has been said on affidavit as to what action, if any, was taken though it was stated during the course of arguments by Mr. Sabharwal that inquiry was held and the building engineer concerned was awarded some punishment. Wo will not, however, take notice Of this submission. We also do not think that he petitioners could be accused of laches in approaching the MCD for gram of second extension in the circumstances of the present case though this was not the ground on which rejection was made. In the sale deeds in respect of 18 DUs the description of the property sold does- not mention any construction which is not reflected in the completion certificates. For any construction thereafter the petitioners cannot be held responsible. It is for the MCD to take steps to remove unauthorised construction, if any, existing in the DUs already sold. The petitioners cannot certainly be visited with any punishment for the evil of others. Proceedings of the MCD which have been brought on record do show that the unauthorised construction was perhaps made by the purchasers of the DUs. However, this question can still be gone into by the MCD if any unauthorised construction has been made by the petitioners the grant of sanction in respect of the present three blocks This court in Raghbir Singh s case (supra) has alrendy held that the Commissioner has power to review the order the second respondent has exercised that right. It is immaterial if he did that suo moto or at the instance of any other person. The second respondent after examining the case, came to the conclusion that the sanction originally granted was not valid and he, in fact, directed holding of inquiry against the erring officials of the MCD. The considerations on which the second respondent withheld the grant of extension have been held by us to be irrelevant so long as the sanction remains valid and there is no action under Ss. 338, 343, 344 and 345 of the Act and any other such provision in the Act. We are unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent was actuated with any mala fides in withholding the grant of extension. 338, 343, 344 and 345 of the Act and any other such provision in the Act. We are unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners that the second respondent was actuated with any mala fides in withholding the grant of extension. ( 19 ) THE fact, therefore, remains that the building plans in the group housing scheme were sanctioned by the MCD, construction was made as per plans, completion certificates granted, when buildings with land were sold to different purchasers. MCD mutated the properties in their names, at the time of sanction of the plans in question no unauthorised construction could be said to exist and taking into consideration the provisions of S. 336 sanction was granted. It is not the case of the respondents that consequent upon sale of plots on customary subdivision basis in contravention of the lay-out plan the sanction would become invalid. It is also not the case of the respondents that sanction could have been refused under S. 336 or if it could be said that the sanction was obtained in consequence of any material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement within the meaning of Ss. 333. 334 and 335 or that there was any unauthorised construction within the meaning of S. 343 or that any action was initiated against the petitioners under Ss. 343. 344 or 345. It is also not the case that as it presen the concept of group housing scheme as existing h^s vanished. There has been no action under S. 313 (5) on there being violation of any provisions of the lay-out plan. ( 20 ) IN the circumstances, therefore, we do not think that the MCD was justified in refusing to. grant extension of the period to the petitioners. ( 21 ) DURING the course of arguments, reference was made to a few reported decisions but because of the view which we have taken, it is not necessary to refer to these decisions. We also feel it unnecessary to refer to the historry of various litigations between the parties though we notice that different stands had been taken, by the MCD. But we rnav note that on 7-12-1979 a suit (Suit No. 78211979) for filed by Manmohan Gupta first purchaser of dwelline unit No. B-10 in the group housing scheme against the MCD seeking a restraint that extension of period be not granted to the petitioners. But we rnav note that on 7-12-1979 a suit (Suit No. 78211979) for filed by Manmohan Gupta first purchaser of dwelline unit No. B-10 in the group housing scheme against the MCD seeking a restraint that extension of period be not granted to the petitioners. The MCD suffered judgment and decree was passed on 31-5-1980. interestingly the petitioners who were the most affected party were not made parties in that suit. The MCD will therefore ignore the judgment and cecree in that suit. ( 22 ) ACCORDINGLY, this petition L allowed. The order of the MCD refusing to grant extension of the period is set aside. The matter will again go back to the MCD for decision on the application of the petitioners in accordance with law keeping in view the principles laid down in the judgment. The MCD will give Its decision within two months. The Rule is made absolute. Petitioners will be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. I, (XX ).