Kirpal, J.
(1) The challenge in this writ petition is to the decision of the respondent in not granting extension of time with ragard to the building plans which bad been sanctioned earlier.
(2) Very briefly stated the facts are that one Ganga Wati was the owner of the property No. 16 Alipur Road, Delhi. She decided to develop the same into a Group Housing Complex. Layout plans were submitted on 11th January, 1965 and the same were approved by the Standing Committee of the Corporation. Permission was then sought to construct 21 dwelling units and the building plans were sanctioned on 25th July, 1966.
(3) The petitioners herein purchased the rights of Ganga Wati on December 20, 1967. They, however, constructed and completed only 18 dwelling units as alleged by the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that these dwelling units were constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plans.
(4) On 19th April, 1969, revised layout and building plans were submitted in respect of four blocks, namely, A-1,A-2, C-21 & C-22. In the meantime, on 9th April, occupancy certificates were granted by the respondents with regard to the dwelling units which had been constructed. On 8th July, 1969, the revised layout plan was sanctioned. Case of the petitioners is that they started construction of these four blocks but the same could not be completed within the period allowed.
(5) The 18 dwelling units, it is submitted by the petitioners, which were constructed and in respect of which the occupancy certificates had been issued, were sold to different parties. In view of the fact that the construction of the four additional blocks was not completed in time, an application was filed in 1972 for revalidation of the plans. On 21st July, 1972, these plans were revalidated for a further period of one year. The petitioners contend that they could not avail of revalidation due to paucity of funds.
(6) Litigation appears to have started between the petitioners and the purchasers of the aforesaid dwelling units which purchasers had formed themselves into an association called Anand Vihar owners' Association. Members of the said association filed suits from time to time seeking injunction against the petitioners with a view to restrain them from raising any construction at the site. Relief was also sought against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the prayer was that the Corporation should not revalidate the building plans.
(7) On 24th August, 1974, while litigation between the petitioners and the respondents was going on before the trial court, an application was filed with the Corporation for revalidation of the previous sanction which bad elapsed. This application was, however, rejected on 3rd October, 1974. It is submitted by the petitioners that the ground for rejection was non-payment of building revalidation fee.
(8) On 27th January, 1979, the petitioners filed another application for revalidation of the sanctioned plan. The case of the petitioners is that the building plan committee sanctioned revalidation of the plan vide its Resolution dated 17th July, 1979. It is further contended that despite the revalidation the plans were not released. It is further alleged that the petitioners, however, were informed of this revalidation and on 24th July, 1979 they once again submitted building plans. On 17th January, 1980, however, the Commissioner of the Corporation recorded a note in the files rejecting the prayer for revalidation. Prior to this, in November. 1979, one of the owners of a dwelling units bad filed a suit impleading the Corporation as a sole defendant and had prayed that the Corporation should be restrained from revalidating the plans. In the written statement filed thereto, it is contended by the petitioners, the Corporation for the first time stated that the request for revalidation bad been declined. On the basis of this written statement and the statement of the counsels the aforesaid suit of Manmohan Gupta was decreed. Case of the petitioners is that this was a collusive decree. On 4th September, 1980 notice of demolition was issued to the petitioners.
(9) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of the Corporation whereby he is stated to have rejected the petitioners' application dated 27th January, 1979 for revalidation of the building plus.
(10) The application for revalidation had been filed by the petitioners under Section 341 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. The said provision reads as under:
'THECommissioner, when sanctioning the erection of a building or execution of a work, 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 hereinbefore provided, unless the Commissioner on application made thereforee has allowed an extension of that period.'
(11) During the course of hearing, Mr. Sabharwal, learned Counsel for the Corporation, inter-alia. sought to contend that the application itself was not maintainable because an application under Section 341 of the Act for extending the time could only be filed before the period within which the building had to be constructed as to the sanctioned plan, bad expired. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied upon a decision of a Single Bench of this Court reported as Raghbir Singh & Others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another, Air 1981 Del 246. In that case building plans had originally been sanctioned but the period within which the construction could be made bad expired. A letter was then written seeking extension of the sanctioned plan. It was, in this connection, that the Single Judge made the following observations :
'Plan reading of this notice shows that the application is not a notice either under Section 333 or 334. The owners were obviously asking extension of the plan sanctioned on 2.12.1966. The extension was being sought because the construction was still pending. Section 341 contemplates an extension of the original period but this extension must be sought within the original period prescribed at the time of the sanction. If the plan was sanctioned .on 2.12.1966 the application for extension should have been made before 2.12.1967. This is clear from the other provision of Section 341. The said section provides that if the work is not completed within a period specified in the original sanction, the work shall not be continued. A fresh sanction is necessary under the said Section and if the fresh sanction is not obtained, the original sanction is exhausted or lapsed. As the petitioners did not obtain a fresh sanction not obtained extension, the original sanction given on 2-12-1966 exhausted itself on 2.12.1967 Thereafter, there was no valid plan of which the extension could be sought and that too 12 years after the original sanction had lapsed. The Commissioner had no authority to permit any extension as sought by the owners as it would have been a clear contravention of Section 341 of the Act.'
(12) In the present case the petitioners have not applied for a fresh sanction. The application of the petitioners is for extension of time. This application has been filed under Section 341 of the Act. The decision of the Single Judge in Raghbir Singh's case is clearly applicable and according to the said decision the Commissioner would have no authority to grant extension or an application which had been filed after the period within which the construction could have been raised had expired. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that on a correct interpretation of Section 341 of the Act it cannot be concluded that an application for extension of time had to be filed within the period when the plans were still in operation. It is submitted that even the Corporation has understood Section 341 to mean that an application for extension can be filed even after the period has elapsed. It may here be noted that an appeal was filed against the decision to the Single Judge in Raghbir Singh's case. The said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench and the decision is reported in : AIR1982Delhi550 Raghbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A perusal of the decision of the Division Bench, however shows that it does not refer to this aspect of the case and does not interpret the provision of Section 341 of the Act.
(13) The position, thereforee, as it now stands, is that the observations of the Single Judge of this Court in Raghbir Singh's case have not yet been overruled. As I read Section 341 of the Act I do not find any words therein which in any way suggest or indicate that an application for fresh sanction or for extension should be tiled within the period to validity of the original plans. I further find it difficult to agree that once the period has elapsed, there is no valid plan whose extension can be sought. The plan docs not become invalid with the lapse of time. If a plan is sanctioned, for example, for a double storeyed house, and within the prescribed period only the ground floor has been constructed it does not mean that the plan has bee 'me invalid because if that was so then the ground floor, which has been constructed, would have to be demolished. The only effect of the period of sanction coming to an end is that no further construction is permissible by virtue of provisions of Section 341 of the Act. Even Section 341 does not state that after the period has elapsed the plans become Invalid. The plans, to my mind, which have been sanctioned continue to exist but the period within which further construction can be done in accordance with the plan may come to an end and further construction cannot take place without obtaining the necessary permission under Section 341 of the Act. The view which I have expressed, tentatively, is contrary io the decision of S B. Wad, J. in Raghbir Singh's case. In my opinion, this aspect should be decided by a larger Bench more so when large number of such cases arise in Delhi While interpreting Section 341 another important aspect which comes up for consideration is as to under what circumstances is an application to be made for grant of fresh sanction and under what circumstances can an extension be applied for. Section 341 deals both with fresh sanction and extension but an application for fresh sane' ion has to comply with the provisions of Section 333 and the bye-laws in respect thereto whereas an extension is applied for under Section 341. It is possible that one view may be that if construction of building has commenced after the building plans have been sanctioned but the period within which the construction could be completed has elapsed then if there is no change in the bye-laws the owner may only apply for extension of time but where, however, bye-laws have undergone a change it may be necessary to make a fresh application for sanction. Another possible interpretation can be that the extension can be granted for a further period of one year only. thereforee, even if an application under Section 341 for extension can be filed after the original period had expired nevertheless under no circumstances can such an application be filed more than one year after the expiry of the original term because the extension can be only for a period of year. Yet another possibility can be that when extension has once been granted there is no power under Section 341 to grant any more extension. All these are questions which merit a serious and authoritative consideration and they arise in the present case.
(14) I thereforee, direct that papers of this case be laid before my Lord the Chief Justice and subject to his orders, this Writ petition be decided by a larger Bench.
(15) The parties desire that as the point involved is very important and is likely to arise in a number of cases the case should, if possible; be listed for hearing at an early date.