Thc; provisions of this Chapter· shall apply 10 such areas o; rl'oior as .nay be 'lol!fier by the Authority from time-to lime, i\!o person or Jody (excluding a department of Central or State Govemmsm or local authority) shall instituie or change the use of anv land or carry o .. rt de velopment on any !and without obtaining permission in wniing from ihe Aut;1miiy·
Provided that in !he case of a department of Centre.I or State Government or· local authority intending to carry out on any land "'lny development other man those covered by the operational constructions as defined· in section 2 (e), tna concerned department or local authority, as "he case may be, shall noiifl' in writing to the Authority o" ils intenton to do so giving t, ,11 particulars there of and accompanied by such documents and plans as may be prescribed by the State Government from time to time, at least, one month orior 10 the undertaking of such development; and where Authority has raised any objection in respec. ol the conformity of the proposed .development. either lo any development p!ar under preparation, o. to any of the building bye-laws intorce at the time. or due:
to, any other material consideralion, the department or.the local authority as ih.::
·case may be sh.""11-
(i) either •nake necessary modification ·in the proposals fo_r develop ment to meet the objections. raised by ihe Authority, or
(ii) submit the proposals for development toqether with the objections raised ov the. Author~y to the State Government Ior decision. 11\/her proposals and objections have been submitted, no developmen shat be undertaken until the State Government has ·finally decider on the matter. · The State Government on- receipt of the proposals ior development 1oge!i1e with the objections ot the Authority shall in .consultation with tile Dsvelopmen Commissioner ei'he. approve the proposals with or without modifications or ma:
direct the concerned department or local authority as ~he case may be tc mak:
such moditication h the proposals as they consider necessary in \h_e circurn stances- :
"""' • ~~ 4 f. ... - " - h ~l'? ~ <41C; ~<:R'i 311.'ffTl<-:t e11 · oJ't>llCQ,(1"\'f ~ Molllx e;lT "Rt)fl.;. TiilG ·7,y l("°il~ ~ 6 i:illr<fi ~ ~-;; ~ ~ n1 ~- -r~ iY ~ ~~( ~~ cil' <.i:
~ WTT fu -~ ~~ $1' fufura- ~ ~ ~'.rr, ~~ -;:u-~- ;;;°'; G ·,ff:
~ ~"G"il ~ ~ -.;'fi'°';W TTf{ ~ ·;{ lr' m .~· fu~-..T· ~ m ;mv.:,~ ~)·u ft ' t.l~ifcld f;mfur ~ ~ zj'1 Comments and case-law [Chapter VI of t:1e BRDA Act provides for 'Development of land and bui!C:in control". In terms or the provisions of section 30, an emharqo has been pUL wit regard to the development of land by the owner thereof except with 11,e oennis · sion of the concerned Authority under the Act. Uma. Shyam Periver Trust •.t:
State of Bihar, 19fl0 (1} PLJR 603.
Enquiry envisaged before amending or revoking tho development schem ' .,. ·• - ·· - ..J- -- ~"~ ""'"'"""rih1 m~~n :::i n11hlir. enouirv With oooortunn Bihai Regional Development Authority Act, i 974 Sec. 30 J oI l1earing elctendsd to citizens. }( Remdes Shenoy i's. State of Kameteks, 199~. supp. (2) sec 516 J :Jri. O,..nm..:,'s , .,Jligation when d~s?ling_ wif.h J..ind ~ b1.11if-.::ing sltas, -(f the owner oi' any lane including a local authority, a body corporate constituted un dor cny law and --lep2rtment of lhe Government utilii12s. sells, !eases out or otherw:se disposes of such land, Im shall lay down and rnako a street or streets giv;n~ access-and right of way to the owners of the plots 'into which the fare mai~ De divided so as to connect them with an ·exLsting public or private street, c:WG also provide other amenities.
Comments @ild CiiJse-la,11!
[Section 3i provides for the land owner's oblig:1iion l•trhcn dealhg wiih land as !.o!..'iidir:g sites Uma Shyam Parivar Trust vs. State of Binsr, 1990 (i-) PLJ 503.]
:~2. !.@l,'-i:or,1t Plan.-{1) Before utilising, selling or otherwise dec.:ing with any 1i:::1d under Section 31 , the owner thereof shall a?ply to the Aufaority ir. writing 1rt1iih a lay-out plan of the land showing followhg particulars, namely :-
(a) chs piots into wnich the land is proposed to be divided for the · erection cf bulidings thereon and ihe purpose or purposes for which · sud buildings are to be used;
(b) the reservation or allotment of any site •o~ any street, open space, parl· recreation ground, schools, markets or any other puolic pur poses;
(c) the intended level. direction ancl width oi street or streets;
(d) -the rogubr line of street or streets;
(e) Hv:i arrangements with specification 10 be ,~,acie for levelling, pavin!'.;.
metalling, nagging, channell:ng, sewering, drain;ng, conserving scrap ing anc lighting street or streets Every appdcauon under sub-section {1) shall be accompanied by such fee <1s may be prescribed by regulations:
Provided that no such fee shall be necessary in the case of an application made by a department of the Government. a local au1ho,·i,y or bociy corporate.
(2) The provisions of this Act and '{he regulations made thereunder as to th3 planning standards shall apply- in the case of L?t}1-out plan reterred to in sub . section (1) and al! the particulars refetied to in that s..ib-section shall be subject to U1e sanction 0f the Authority. · {3) Wiih;n ~ixty days after the receipt o.- any applicatio;1 under sub-section (1) . i110 /l,i.uhori1y after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary iP relation to any matter specified in sub-section (2) of Section 1 D or in relation to any other m1: 1er, sh--::.11 either accord sancuon to the lay-out plan on such condi!ion3 as ii mav ihiil!{ fit or disallow it or ssk for further information wi!h respect to it · (i!) Suell sanction shall be refused if the application does not conform lo tne provisions o~ this Act, regulation, rules or c1ny plan under this Act.
(5) The lay-out plan referred lo earlier in t'iis connection, sr.al;, J so required 'i:Jy ihe Author~" bo prepared by a Town Planner licensed by the Authorities.
Comnwn~s and C<'.lse-1:riw [VI/her: any site is reserved tor public purpose by the private coloniser, the • ·'·'~--a,• ,..,mnnt imnose a condition ior sanctiornnq the plan that ' -- --~ A11thnrit\/ Bihar Regional Development Authority Act. 1974 [ Secs. ~1-32 2 ,~!]
free of cost, it would not be proper to sir, itch pub Ii<: interest to create rigln and title over the property. Transfer of ownership to the Development Authority free r;;f.
cost is not permissible !.inder law. Pl. Chet Ram \l.1shist l c. Munici,oal corpors tion of Delhi (1995) · SGG :F:- Building Plans ; m.only.besanctioned according to the building regulations prevailing at the ti e ot sanctjoninq of such building plans In case of any change in building· regulations, the new regulations in torce on date of actual sanctioning of building plan ·wm be. applicable. Usman Gani J Khatri 1m. Ceman ment. Board. (1992) ~3 sec 455.
Town Planning.-ln drawing up plan for development of an area, the S!ale Government has complete discretion to draw of development plan wiihout hold ing public enquiry and providing opportunity or hearing to all persons lil<elv to be affected. K. Ramdas Shenoy vs. State of l<arnataka. 1991 Supp. (2) sec 5i7.
VI/here Munidpal land had been earmarked for "open space" for public use, that is to maintain ecology and hygenic environment, the Siate Governmer.l has . no power to sanction lease for house construction over: U1e land. Virendr;J Gaw vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 3. sec 1: 19~5 .(:t).°'AH 'PLR (SC) ms.
33. Alteration or clemclition oi' sfif(eef·iria~e,:'in br;eactu of Sscliorii 22'.
(1) If any person lays out or makes any.;stree"t·. r.efer(~<(to ·in Section 32. with· out or otherwise than in conformity with- ~tie orders: c;,i the Authoriiy, 'he Vice Chairman may whether or not tho offender be prosecuted under this Act. b~ noiice-
(a) require U:e offender to show cause in writing and send to th~ Vice;
Chairman on or before such date as may be specified in the nonce why such 'street should not' be altered to ihe satisfaction of !ilE Vies-Chairman or, if such alteration be impracticable, wh:: sue+ street should not he demolished; or
(b) require the offender 10 appear before the Vice-Chairmen either per· sonall / or by a d!JIY authorised ageni on sucn day and at suer time and place as may be speclfied in the notice and show Cell.IS€ aforesaid.
(2) If any person on whom such notice is served iails to show cause re the satisfaction of the Vice-Chairman why such street should not be so alterer or demolished, ihe Vice-Chairman may pass an order directing the alteration 01 demolition of sue! street as he may think fit.
(3) The coot incurred in this connection shall be recovered from ihe parlie~ concerned as arrears of land revenue.
21,. Power of Vic;e-Chaiuman to order wor!f fro roe carrioo out 1.1r to IC"'il'li"l out himseli 1n rfofeiu3t-lf any private street or part thereoi is no: levelleci paved, metalled. ilagged, channelled .. sewered, drained, conserved or ;ighiened tc the satisfaction of the Vice-Chairman he may by notice require the owners o such street or part thereof and ihe owners of the lands and buildings in froni o or abutting on such street or part thereof to carry out any work whic.1 in hii opinion may by necessary, and wilhin such time as may be specified in suet notice.
(2) lf such work is not carried out within the time specified in t:is i1o1ice the Vice-Chairman may, if he thinks fit, execute it and recover the expenses ;r, curred thereon from the owners referred to in sub-section (1) in such proportior as may be determined by the Vice-Chairman as arrears of tax under this Acl.
Bihar Region:31 Dev~lopment Authorit'r Act. 1974 Secs. 33-34 1 Comments l1 case-law [The authonty must ensure that there is sufficier.l tiroe between the date of ;ldveriisement and lile date on which auction is to be relci. Merely ensurlnq a ili~he;- pries than that of ihe previous auction is not enough Mere compliance of requirement of issuing advertisement is. not enough. The action of Government msturnentahty must not only be lair but it also must appear to bo fair Ganesh Bf;andar vs. The Stsi», 1989 PLJR 299. · Section 34 empowers the Vice-Chairman to order warlc to be carried ou: or to carry out such work himself m detault of the land owrer. Uma Shyam Parivar Trusi vs. State of Bilwr. 1990 (1) PLJR 503.]
8G. ;::·.-ohiibi~ion to buikling wi'l.nout s~mclio11.-l\lo- person shalt erect or commence to erect any building, or make any addition o~ aneration to any build ing except wiih the previous sanction or the Vice-Chairman, and in accordance wiiil the provision of this Chapter and the regulations made under this Act.
Provided that the Authority ma/make separate set of nequ:ations for d!ffcr -a:-ii areas or difie~cnt l{ir.ds of areas.
Comments & case-law [In case -::>i Cl 1stn.1eiion made without obtainin·!1 pnor-sanction of tho control .linr.,. authority ft is '10t a requiromeni of law that the complaint be filed by the commi!ing authoritv State vs. Rajendra Presed, 1965 ell.JR 520, Res·1ricticm, imposed upon a person from making 2ny construction Without obtaining prior sanction of' the Controlling Authority by the provisions of the Act.
'::'.c, not in any way restrict tho power of the controlling authority itself to grant sanction to a plar even after the construction is made. Tho exercise o" sud power 01 post facto sanction of a plan is not, ln any .w2Jy, inconsistent with the purpose and object of the statute. Mosst. Lexm! Jain vs. R. S. Sobin), ·i 965 3L;JR 963.
Socilon 35 provides for restrictions upon ·all persons to erect or. commence tc erect ;..ry buitding or make any addition or alteration to' any building except with the previous sanction or the Vice-Chairman, and :n accorcanco with 01iaptor VI o: t:1is Ac"! and the regulations made thereunder. Doman .Paswan vs. State of 3il:12r, 1938 PUP. 968.
The authorities directed not to demolish such buildings, which have bean.
constructed strictll1 in· accordance wiih the sanctioned plan. in cases 1111hero !here ls a deviation hof"' the _sarictioned plan, the builders to file a detailed represen tation before the Vice Chairman. The Vice· Chairman to hear and pass appropri ::it:=: orders with reference to the materials on record and also consider regarding U,e ~imnt of post .acto sanction, with the building byelaws. where deviation has been done from the sanctioned plan. Ravindra Kumar vs. State of Bihar, 1998 ('l) PLJR 927.
A plan for senction of construction of 3 ooilciing cannot be rotused 011 the grounrl. or non-submission of documents .showinq mutation or the land owner.
/i.j,:.1y r-:umar Jha vs. Stete or Bihat; 2000 (i) PLJR 226.
Approval giv0n oy the authorities to a plan i'or- construction o1 a house ex :::a::ii on an aree falling in common between the member .of the same ·family: If _,.: .... -•: ........ ,,... .. ;h" r-nn- [ Sec 35 Bihm Regional Development Authority Act, 1974 2 3] struction in the common arcs demolition car. not be ordered by the c.utho~iti£ The owner of the house directed to file fresh representation before ths Vi< Chairman, PROA for according sanction for the disputed structure alongwi,~ t'· compromise petition. Uma Jeyesws! vs. Chairman Pl-?DA, 2000 (i) PLJR '2!::
- approval 91ven ,o pelilioner except on the area falling commor bctwe( members of the same family and it was observed that approval for cans ructrc on the common area woulcf be given afier petitioner has fited a comprome agreement for the common area- order for demolition of such area passed n, thereafter a compromise petition filed-in view of the compromise petition, dem lition is not required end V.C. directed to accord his approval after the ;:K!ition filed his application tor the same. Uma .Iayaswal vs. Chairman, PROA, 2GDO ( PLJR,125.
Seciion 35 read with Sye Law 5.3 (v) --a plan for sanction of constructk cannot be refused on the ground of non-submission of document showing m,11 tion of the name of the land owner. Krishna Kumar Giri vs. Vice Chairman, 20l
(1) PLJR 226.
- sanction of pl:1r;.i for erection, addition or aheranon -there is no ,sqllir ment l!/s 36 that the landlord should disclose, while applyinq for scncton, H occupancy by tenants of the portion ~"hich is for sanction of plan-word • vr.d any law" u/s 37 has to be read ejusdem qeneris - non- disclosure of occ pancy by tenants in the plan for sanction does not amount 10 mlsrep~essnlarv.
of fraud or evictlon of tenant bypassing lhe 8.8.C. Act, i 982 vivek Aror,? :, Patna Regio,1a/ Development Autnority; 200i (2) PLJA 798.]
. 36. Erec~!on of buildings, ei:c.-(J) Every person, inc!uding local aL•ihortl body corporate constituted under any law and a department of Central or 3ta Government who intcnds->
(a) to carry out a development plan or any other development wor'<
(b) to make any addition or alteration thereto, shall apply for sanctk by giving notice in writing of his intention to the Vice-Chairman such torm and containing such information as may be prescrior by regulations made in this behalf.
Provided that ·no such sanction need be sough1 if the alteration is to ~ done internally in a buikiing withoul affecting the position of oath-room, _;(itchE and drainage arranqements and further that the proposed internal aiieratio;-s doi "not violate the provisions of the building regulations or planning standards ti,i ~n iorce.
(2) Every such notice shall be accompanied by such documents anu p!a1 as may be prescribed.
(3) Every applicatton under sub-section ('i) shat be accompanied by sw fee as may be proscribed by regulation made in this behalf:
· Provided 'urthsr that the operational constructions of the Railways, 0111 Central Government Departments, and Departments of Staie Government m, be exempted i,orn the provisions as aforesaid.
In resped of other works ot Railways, Central Government Department and departments of the State Government such as construction of new !ir.e new build:ngs, new structures and new inslaliations and reconstruction of existi:
lines, buildings, structures and installations for both operational purposes and 1 extension of services permission of the Authority may be gmnteci or rejcc~!
Bihar Re~ional Development Authority Act, 19/4 Sec. 36] iaiesi by three weeks from the date of r:.cuip, ..:,f notice or proper applicatic ci· iha A1..!iih0rl,y for tha purpose. In case no orders of the Authority are passer' , riu .;cm;-11uiiica'.0d to within ihe aforesaid time-limit of three' weeks at the lates · "' R;;ii'.1::ays. Cantral Government Departments and State Government Departrr-ervs will be t;-0e to go ahead with the constructions. In caso .he Authoritv has rR jzcicd E:.ny proposal rn respect of Railways, Central Government or any Stato Gov3mment Departmeni· contained in the notice or apphc ition as aforesaid an apr,0c:1I si-i.:111 lie to the State Government if preferred withm a period of thirty nays. Whil& disposing of such appeal the State Govern'ment shall consult the Cenlral Government or the Department, of the State Government as the 'case nv:1y bs.
(•1) Where permission is refused under sub-section (2) of Section 37 the app!ic8r.i or any person claiming through him shall not be ,c:.n@eC: to get refund, o, ·1:10 fps paid on the application for permission bu! the Authorityrnay on an :::'.'Jp[~iion ior refund being made within three months of communications of the .
groi.mcls d the refusal, direct refund of such portion of the :eP. as ii may de:qm i:1roper ir: tho circumstances of the .case.
(51 ·nJe P.uihority shalt l<eep in such form as may be prescribed by regu!a ,'ons, ~ roqistar of aopncations for permission under ihis section.
{5) Ti19 said register shall contain such particulars mc?uding information as £0 lh3 manner ·n which applications for permission have been cieall w:th as r.iav i::0 p,e:::::;ribed by ·regli'atiQns and shall be avaiiable for inspection to the public at ail reaeonaole hours on· payment of such fee, not exceedinq rupees five es may be pr.~~cribed by re_g· •!ations.
Comamnts. l!, case l.:iw [Sec.Ion 36 provides-that every person including local authority or body corporate constitu-ed under any law for the tirno being in force is required to .vpp!y to: sanction 'or erection of any building, the restrictions. imposed are man c''21ory in characte- DomanPaswan vs. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR 968.
~.~~"R""u' Pl@n.-The requirements of public. interest can outweigh the "IAgiti rrate enpectatlon" O'. orivate persons and the decision of a public body (such as a- Development Authority) on that basis in exercise of statutory powers is not assaila:J!e. Where Development At.1hority had changed land. use of an area in ;he Wi.zisier Plan from 'recreationat" to "residential" and again trorn "residential" to "l"a:reat:o,al", ihe first change by the Development Authority docs not" giva rise.
to 3 i.Z'l)ilimate expectation in a private coloniser owning land Jn the area that r.e coukl develop a housing colony therein merely because the coloniser had sub mt1o1 a plan '"or -approval to the Development Authority in cases whern grant o;
approvc:I o, such plan is not automatic and the statute permits amendment o~ U10 I\Jiaster 01afl by change ot land use. Ghaziabad Development Authorily vs.
De/I-·! 4uio and General Finance (P) Ltd., (1994) 4 sec 42 .
.3ei'o~e a space can be held to be a "street" under lhe Act, there must be :1 dedication by the owner to t!le public. in the present. case the appellant has ded'cated fne verandah in dispute tothe public use. It is being used tor pass ing and reoassinq by the public at large and as such is a "street" in terms of Section 3 (i 3) (a) of the Act. The appellant has, thus, surrendered his rights in · • · ·• • .,c, , ..,.L·- -· .i-1;_ TL~ , .,... ..... ,, .... ~ th ......... ~.,..,,n ...... 1·h, tc .-..nrl ~hM:;&\1-C ~ Sec 36 Bihnr Regional Development ,l 1fhority /-'CL 1974 2 8J dedicated to public by the owner for passing and repassmg, partakes it character of a 'street" and no longer remains under the control o! ths m•.rr.E The owner has no righi at all times to prevent the public from using tt same. When the owner of the property has, by his own volition permitted h property to be converted into c: "street", then he has no right to clarm ~• compensation when tho saf"1e property is made a "public street" under Se tior 171 (4) of the Act. Th!=! "Streets" are meant for public use It rs nece sary that the "streets" whicn arc being used by the public are rrequently r paired and are also saved from public abuse. in the absence of any regui tory control. the hawkers and squatters are likely to occupy the "street thereby creating nuisance for the public. In a situation like this i'I i::; nece sary for the Committee lo step in and exercise its powers under Ssciion 1"
(4) of the Act. The Committee exercises rngulatory control and is resporu ble for the repair and upkeep of the "public streets". The verandah in d1 pute is a "stres . It has .':)eon declareci as a "public street" for tne bett snjovrncnt of the public-right in the said street, When a "street" is dacta« as "public street" the owner of the property· comprising the said "street" hi no right to claim compensation. Gobind Prasad Jagdish Persed vs. NDJ1Jl1
(1993) 4 sec '38.
Seclions..,36 and 37 r/w section 38 -presumption of sanetior =-sancton f . a development plan may or may not be accorded but in either case an infc,;-:1 tion is to be given to the applicant and in case no o-uors are passed within period of four months, then sanction can be presumed after the lapse of. :
days of a reninder which goes unheeded -sections 36 ai1d 37 am comprens sive in nature and are a complete Code- section 38 is a coroliary rather a pr viso to section 37. Rajesh Singh Buddhpriya vs. Pante Reg. Dev. Author!
2002 (2) PLJR, 263.J 37 Sairnction or refusal of application for er~ciion ()U ai flJ)Mcl{]io-i(:j , m!lcliiion or alteration thereio.-(1) The Vice Chairman shall sanction the ere tion of a b.uilding or addition or alteration thereto if such erection of lhe buildi1 or addition or alteration thereto would not contravene any provision of ihis ,!:..ct any regulation made thereunder.
(2) If the proposed erection 'or alteration would ·:io in contravention' ot a, provision of this Act, or any regulation made in this behalf or under any 0U1 law, sanction of Iha plan shall be refused.
(3) The Vice-Chairman shall communicate the sanction to ii1e person wl has giver. the notice, and where he refuses the sanction he shall. record a nr statement of his reasons for such refusal and communicate the refUS31 alo:
with the reasons thereof to the person who has qiven the. notice.
(4) -:-he sanction or refusal· 'as aforesaid shall be communicated .n su, manner .as may be specified in the regulation made in this behalf.
(5) I"! at the expiration of a period of 3 months attsr application under S€ tion 36 has been made to the Vice-Chairman, no order in writhg has ,Jo, passed by the Vice-Chairman and no notice of the order passed by the Vic Chairman, in this connection has been sent to the applicant, the applicani sh .give a notice under registered post intimating that sanction shall be presumed nothing to the contrary is received or notified in respect .of his application will' 30 days troro the date of receipt of the notice.
Bihar Regional Development ~t!t'1orily Act, 1974 Sec. 37 ] 3ihar Heqional Development Authority Act, 197~1 comments lli case-law [Provisions of sub-section (5) oi section 31 are mancatory in nature. , he · f.acl of participation by a land owner in any enquiry conductec by an Authurit)' tPc.ler th~ Act cannot bu termed as waiving of the righi ol the land owner to pro ceed w[!h the construction after expiry of perioo of one month's nonce giv.en to ihc ?,~igic,mil Development P.uthority after ii hao not disposed of fae land owner's app!ic.:i.tion for s~nctioning cannot suffer for the delay or laches ot authorities cnc.lc·.- 'ihe Act. Uma Shysm Psrivnr Trust vs. State of Bifiar -, 990 (1) PL.JR 503.
Seciion 37, (5) does not create any rioht whicil is. capable of being waived .
• ~ person hos a right lo erect a building on his own land subject, of course, to the compliance of existing. Building Regulations. Th8 State merely" provides io, certain consequences once tho Authority fails to perform his statutory duty wi1l1in the time limi~ fiKcci by the LegislatL:e. ibid.
Section ;;7 (b) mises a legcil fiction as a result whereof ihe building plan, suba1Hted by the land owner after the expiry of ,he period ::,rescribed by the l_er:isla"iu:·e, allhougt, not expressly sanctioned, would be deemed to navs been canctionod, ibid.
t'1:?-01,,~_-; S2frCiio1,1.-Vl/hero the concerned authority had asked for certain ctariricat.on and udditional iniorrnation from the person who had submitted a "buikiing plan" for sanction, and instead of furnishing the additional information, ih(=: ~:,nC.: owner had claimed deemed sanction on e)(piry of statutory period for sanction o, ,Juiluing plan, the benefit of provision of demned sanction will no! be avai:able to 1he iand owner. Anset Properties and Industries (P) Ltd. vs. DOA, rcss supp (t) sec 61.
Sections 37 and 54 -afte, a plan is sanctioned by PROA, it is incumbent on them lo have w: .. tch on the construction so as to frustrate ihe design of de 'Jiations or ihe aevelopers. Mis Saket Housing Ltd. vs. Patna Regional Dev.
A'Jihoriiy, 2003 (·1) PLJR,832.J .
:J'.~. Sanc~ior:·• @ccordoo uncile1· misrepres1;ntation.- If at any time after the sanction to erection of any building or addition or alteration thereto has been accorded, tho Vice-Chairman is satisfied that such sanction was accorded in consequence of anv material misrepresentation or fraudulent statement contained ln i:1e notice given or informa.don furnished under Section 37 he. may by order in writing and tor reasons to be recorded cancel such sanction rind erection of any building or addition or alteration thereto shall be deemed to have been dorm wiihou! such sanction:
p,-,JV;ded "ll1at before makinq any such order the Vice-Chair-nan shall give reasonable opportunity to the person affected to explain as to why sucl 1 order i:: ;10..il::l not bo r:1m.iP Co1',tments iJ: c.,m::i-16:W' [The authority has ilO power under this provlsion to cancel ;:irs-or.dinance 1Juilclina permit, sanctioned by the controlling authority under the earner Bihar Town Planning and Imoroverncnt Trust Act, 195·,, Hanr:hi Club vs. State, ·1973 38CJ 51:.
Power under Section 38 can only be exercised if application had contained ·-·--- ~~~.,,.""n r,r frri11r!ulent statement, later discovered by authority.
Section sa -withdrawal of sanction-section 38 c otnes the Vicf'· Chairmru with the jurisdictlcn to recall, revoke or cancel the sanction, if the sarno is LI out come uf misrepresentation or fraudulent statement or suppression of mate rials facts =-sectlon 38 does not say that the question beyond what are pr-::vide< in section 38 can also