JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.:- Relying on the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 205 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for declaration that site plan of his MIG flat for regularising erection/construction/alteration be treated as deemed to have been sanction after expiry of period of sixty days. 2. In the year 1986, Housing Board, Haryana framed Scheme No. 1 and issued Brochure for allotment of houses/flats for the Lower Income Group (LIG), Middle Income Group (MIG) and Higher Income Group (HIG) at various stations in the State of Haryana and had thus constructed these types of flats in town Kalka in District Panchkula. One Chand Rani w/o Shri Radha Krishan, resident of Kalka applied for allotment of MIG (Duplex) flat at Kalka, which was allotted to her. Chand Rani executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Sharwana Kaushal and also authorized her further to appoint sub-attorneys. In exercise of the powers so conferred under Special Power of Attorney, Smt. Sharwana Kaushal executed Special Power of Attorney in favour of Smt. Manju Bajaj, mother of the petitioner. On 16.10.2003, the allottee of the flat, Smt. Chand Rani herself, appointed Shri Inder Mohan bajaj as his attorney by executing General Power of Attorney in his favour. These attorneys have been placed on record. 3. After payment of all installments and other dues, Housing Board, Haryana issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ in favour of allottee of the house Smt. Chand Rani. Conveyance Deed was also executed and, thereafter, the Housing Board, Haryana relinquished its claim in all respect. It is, accordingly, stated that control in respect of the flat in question is now under the Municipal Committee Kalka. 4. The petitioner has purchased the said flat from its original allottee vide registered sale deed dated 8.11.2006. After the execution of the sale deed, the petitioner applied with the respondent-Municipal Committee for approval of the site plan for the compounding/regularizing of the construction made at the top floor of the flat in question. The petitioner pleads that the Municipal Committee was expected to act independently and was fully competent to take decision for the sanction or rejection of the site plan yet the Committee had sought advice from the Housing Board and sought clarification on certain points. The petitioner pleads that the Municipal Committee was expected to act independently and was fully competent to take decision for the sanction or rejection of the site plan yet the Committee had sought advice from the Housing Board and sought clarification on certain points. Referring to the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 205 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1971, it is pleaded that Municipal Committee is the competent authority to take final decision upon receipt of the application for the sanction of the site plan. Since petitioner did not receive any communication regarding decision taken by the Municipal Committee Kalka within 60 days, the petitioner pleads that the plan submitted by him would be deemed to have been sanctioned. Reference is made to decision taken by this Court in RSA No. 4094 of 2008 where identical question of law has been so decided. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition. 5. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 2 Housing Board as well as respondent No. 1 - Municipal Committee, Kalka is filed. 6. The stand in the reply is that originally MIG flat was allotted to Smt. Chand Rani and the conveyance deed in her favour was executed on 31.10.2006. It is then pointed out that the case of the transfer on the basis of of sale deed is pending in a civil suit before the Court at Panchkula where issue in regard to unauthorized construction/encroachment is also under consideration. It is accordingly, pleaded that the petitioner is still neither allottee nor transferee of the flat as per the record. 7. Initially the Municipal Committee had raised preliminary objection that Housing Board Haryana had not been impleaded as a party which was necessary and a proper party. The petitioner has thereafter impleaded Housing Board as party respondent. As per their reply, the application submitted by the petitioner was not supported by any site plan nor the petitioner has deposited requisite fee in this regard. The application of the petitioner, however, was forwarded to the Housing Board, Panchkula for compounding the violation. The petitioner is alleged to have concealed this fact and has not placed on record letter dated 21.05.2009. The plea, accordingly, is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. The application of the petitioner, however, was forwarded to the Housing Board, Panchkula for compounding the violation. The petitioner is alleged to have concealed this fact and has not placed on record letter dated 21.05.2009. The plea, accordingly, is that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is also stated that the illegal construction was made much prior to the conveyance deed dated 31.10.2006 without seeking any permission from the Competent Authority and in this regard the allottee has no right or authority. This fact has also not been so disclosed in the petition by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the part of reply where the respondent Municipal Committee has conceded that the plan was submitted for approval. 8. Right of the petitioner on the basis of conveyance deed in his favour are still under adjudication. The question would be to see if the Municipal Committee would have jurisdiction to sanction the site plan or these additions etc. in a build up unit by the Housing Board. The petitioner pleads that this jurisdiction is now with Municipal Committee. The respondents have contested this plea and would urge that where constructed unit is allotted the Housing Board and the Municipal Committee is only concerned with release of water and sewerage connection, it being the only aspect under the control of Municipal Committee. Pendency of civil suit is advanced as another reason to pend consideration of the sanction. 9. The action by the Municipal Committee in not considering the compounding of addition/alteration in the flat appears to have been referred to the Housing Board. Housing Board would be better judge to determine whether the addition/alteration which has been carried out in this unit would be permissible or will satisfy the technical requirement from the safety point of view. The Municipal Committee had no role to play till the time the flats were handed over to the allottees. That being the position, it may not be in an appropriate position to now ascertain if such additions etc. can be permitted or compounded or not. Perhaps the Municipal Committee now has a limited role to play to consider the grant of sewerage and water connection. The action does not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------