ORDER : Heard. Petitioners before this Court are the Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, duly represented through authorized persons by passing resolution, are aggrieved by the impugned letter cum notice dated 9-2-2017 (Annexure P/16) passed by Building Officer, Zone-11, Indore Municipal Corporation, Indore by which the application filed by the petitioners for grant of sanction of map has been rejected and it has been ordered that the application would be considered only if the desired documents are submitted. Petitioner No. 1 was the erstwhile owner of the property situated at 11, Tukoganj, M.G. Road, Indore and petitioner No. 1 executed a sale deed dated 30-9-2015 in favour of petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 is the title holder of the property. 2. Petitioner No. 1, the previous owner, has constructed a commercial mall with multiplex and permission was granted by the Department of Town and Country Planning, Indore on 27-4-2004. Based upon the permission granted by the Town and Country Planning, the Indore Municipal Corporation has also granted building permission for construction of parking, B+3, B+2, B+1, Ground floor to 7th floor plus terrace vide order dated 4-6-2004. 3. Petitioner No. 1 thereafter applied for revised permission which was granted on 22-2-2005 and the construction work has already been carried out pursuant to the aforesaid permission. The occupancy certificates were also issued in favour of petitioner No. 1 on 22-12-2005, 7-4-2006 and 12-7-2007 and there was no dispute in respect of title of the property as is stated in the present writ petition and every time the application for grant of building permission submitted by the petitioner has been allowed by the Indore Municipal Corporation. Petitioners thereafter as they intended to make renovation in the building applied for additional/alteration building permission on 1-5-2015. It is pertinent to note that now a days applications for building permission are submitted on-line. A deviation list report was generated on 5-5-2015 and the deviations were cured by the petitioners. Thereafter a detailed scrutiny report was generated on 11-9-2015 and again some deviations were noticed. It is pertinent to note that now a days applications for building permission are submitted on-line. A deviation list report was generated on 5-5-2015 and the deviations were cured by the petitioners. Thereafter a detailed scrutiny report was generated on 11-9-2015 and again some deviations were noticed. They were also cured on 20-10-2015 meaning thereby the petitioners have cured all the deviations suggested by the Indore Municipal Corporation and as per the final scrutiny report dated 20-10-2015, there was no deviation and the petitioners, as stated by them, were entitled for building permission within a period of sixty days as provided under Rule 28 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012 (for short ‘the Niyam 2012’). Petitioner's contention is that as the permission was not granted within sixty days and no refusal was communicated, the petitioner's application has received deemed permission. Petitioners thereafter on 9-2-2017 informed respondent No. 2 that neither the building plan submitted by the petitioners has been rejected nor there is any communication in this regard therefore, the deemed sanction has come into play. Respondent No. 2, the Building Officer, on 9-2-2017 informed the petitioners that the deemed permission clause is not applicable to them as the petitioner's application was disposed of with some remarks. The petitioners have categorically stated that they have not been issued any notice about the remarks and as stated by the petitioners the remark is for obtaining no objection certificate (NOC) from the M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal (herein after referred as ‘Housing Board’). The petitioner's contention is that for grant of building permission the question of submission of NOC does not arise as there is no encumbrance of any kind over the said property and the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and Housing Board has come to an end after passing of the arbitration award dated 27-6-2010, hence petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned notice dated 9-2-2017. 4. A reply has been filed in the matter and learned Senior Counsel Shri Sunil Jain appearing on behalf of the Corporation has argued before this Court that a joint venture agreement took place between the Housing Board and petitioner No. 1 Company and on account of dispute, the matter was raised before the Arbitrator and finally an award has been passed. He has also argued before this Court that the award passed by the Arbitrator on 27-6-2010 has been subjected to judicial scrutiny and an appeal is pending before the Vth and VIth Additional District Judge, Indore and, therefore, the Housing Board is having an interest in the property, hence the NOC has rightly been demanded by the respondent/Corporation. A rejoinder has been filed in the matter and the stand of the petitioners/company is that it was the Housing Board which has cancelled the agreement on 26-11-2003 and the Housing Board does not have any lien or right over the property in question and thereafter petitioner No. 1 has sold the property vide registered sale deed dated 30-9-2015 in favour of petitioner No. 2, hence the requirement of submitting NOC of Housing Board does not arise. It has also been stated that the agreement between the Housing Board and petitioner No. 1 was cancelled on 26-11-2003 and thereafter the Corporation has granted building permission on 27-4-2004, 4-6-2004, 22-2-2005 and, therefore, the letter dated 12-3-2004 of the M.P. Housing Board has lost is value especially in the light of the award which is in existence. The petitioners have further stated that they have applied for revised building permission in respect of the said piece of land in view of Rule 19 of the Niyam 2012, therefore, there is no need of any NOC or any other document in case an application is preferred under section 19 of the Niyam 2012. The petitioners further stated that respondent/Corporation has stated in para-6 of the reply that they are not disputing the title of the property, therefore, once the Corporation is not disputing title of the property they are under obligation to grant the building permission. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The matter is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at the admission stage itself. 6. In the present case, the undisputed facts reveal that petitioner No. 1 company, who was the title holder of the property, earlier applied for grant of building permission to the Indore Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The Town and Country Planning Department granted permission on 27-4-2004 and the Indore Municipal Corporation also granted permission on 4-6-2004. Thereafter building permission was subsequently granted on 22-2-2005 and the petitioner No. 1 has carried out construction. The Town and Country Planning Department granted permission on 27-4-2004 and the Indore Municipal Corporation also granted permission on 4-6-2004. Thereafter building permission was subsequently granted on 22-2-2005 and the petitioner No. 1 has carried out construction. The occupancy certificates were issued on 22-12-2005, 7-4-2006 and 12-7-2007. Petitioner No. 2 purchased the property in question on 30-9-2015 vide registered sale deed. As the petitioners intended to make certain renovation, they applied for additional/alteration building permission on 1-5-2015. Various deviations were pointed out again and again and they were also cured by the petitioners. The undisputed facts reveal that Rule 28 of the Niyam, 2012 provides for grant of sanction within a period of 60 days, failing which the deeming clause comes into play. The respondents have not rejected the claim of the petitioners, however, demanded NOC from the M.P. Housing Board in the matter. This Court has carefully gone through return filed by the respondents and the same reveals that earlier Housing Board on 12-3-2004 wrote a letter informing the Commissioner that they are having shares in the property in question. It is true that an agreement took place between the M.P. Housing Board and vide letter dated 26-11-2003 the M.P. Housing Board has cancelled the agreement between the petitioner No. 1 and the M.P. Housing Board. The matter went before the Arbitrator and an arbitration award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was passed by the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has passed the award in respect of the dispute between the parties and proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act are pending before Vth and VIth Additional District Judge, Indore. The most important aspect of the case is that Housing Board is not the owner of the property in question. The respondents in their reply in paragraph-6 have categorically stated that they have no dispute regarding the title of the petitioners. In the considered opinion of this Court, an award was already passed on 27-6-2010 and it was the Housing Board who has canceled the agreement between the parties and the respondents have not taken a stand that they are disputing the title of the petitioner, hence the question of demanding NOC does not arise. In the considered opinion of this Court, an award was already passed on 27-6-2010 and it was the Housing Board who has canceled the agreement between the parties and the respondents have not taken a stand that they are disputing the title of the petitioner, hence the question of demanding NOC does not arise. Another very important aspect of the matter is that the agreement was cancelled by the Housing Board and the petitioners have already filed a copy of the letter dated 26-11-2003 and thereafter respondents granted building permission on 27-4-2004, 4-6-2004 and 22-2-2005. Now an application has been preferred by the petitioners under Rule 19 of the Niyam, 2012 for permission for which the NOC of the M.P. Housing Board has been sought by the respondents. Rule 19 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Niyam reads as under: 19. Application for alteration. — When the application is for making an alteration in the existing building, only such plans and statements, as may be necessary, shall accompany the application. 7. Rule 19 and Rule 16 of the Niyam, 2012 are altogether two different statutory provisions of law. Rule 16 deals with grant of fresh permission in respect of fresh construction whereas Rule 19 deals with an application for alteration. Rule 19 does not provide for such NOC as desired by the respondents. Not only this, even during pendency of the dispute, if any, between M.P. Housing Board and petitioner No. 1, building permission was granted in the past from time to time. Now it is only a question of renovation/alteration and as reflected from the annexures, the petitioners have cured all the deviations as pointed out by the respondents from time to time. The application of the petitioner is complete in all respect except for the NOC from the M.P. Housing Board. In the considered opinion of this Court, the question of directing the petitioners to submit NOC does not arise in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Resultantly, as the petitioners have completed all formalities and have complied with all of the directions from time to time, the respondents are directed to sanction the building permission of the petitioners within a period of seven days from today. The impugned notice dated 9-2-2017 is hereby quashed. 8. Resultantly, as the petitioners have completed all formalities and have complied with all of the directions from time to time, the respondents are directed to sanction the building permission of the petitioners within a period of seven days from today. The impugned notice dated 9-2-2017 is hereby quashed. It is further made clear that respondents will not demand NOC from the M.P. Housing Board as there is no requirement of the same and the petitioners have completed all the other formalities required in the matter. 9. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed. C.C as per rules.