Dharamshala, Oct. 18 -- The high court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed a long pending petition seeking permission to construct a three-storey hotel with a parking floor in Chhota Shimla. The HC observed that planning approval granted in 1997 did not automatically entitle the petitioners to undertake construction without the mandatory building permission from the municipal corporation (MC). Justice Sandeep Sharma, in a judgment pronounced on October 16, observed that the petitioners could not rely on the approval granted by the town and country planning (TCP) department in September 1997, as the Shimla MC had never sanctioned the building plans. The land in question was subsequently brought under the green belt and core area through government notifications issued in 2000. The court held that the earlier approval, which was subject to obtaining building permission from the local authority, could not be used to claim a right to construct in an area where restrictions had subsequently been imposed in the public interest. The court order stated that though sanction granted by the TCP department (through September 2, 1997 order) was subject to further permission by the MC, which never came to be granted, but even otherwise, area, within which construction is proposed by the petitioners, came to be declared as green belt/core area through notifications issued on December 7, 2000 and August 11, 2000. "Since prior to issuance of notifications, no building permission, if any, in terms of the condition contained in September 2, 1997 order stood granted by the MC, permission granted by the TCP can be said to have lost its relevance, rather in the changed circumstances, petitioners are required to make a fresh application, if permissible, to raise construction in the green/core area to the competent authority. Consequently, this court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed being devoid of merit," it added. The petitioners had approached the court after the MC refused to grant building permission in June 1998, citing the absence of clear land title. Although the TCP department had approved their plans for construction on land, the required municipal sanction was never granted. The petitioners subsequently challenged the authorities' decisions and sought directions for the grant of construction permission, arguing that the approval issued in 1997 had created a right in their favour. The court observed that the petitioners had failed to fulfil the conditions of the 1997 approval, particularly the requirement to obtain building permission from the MC. Therefore, the TCP department's approval did not give them a legal right to construct the hotel. The court held that since the land was subsequently declared a green belt/core area and no construction permission had been granted, the earlier approval could not override the restrictions. It said the notifications were issued in the public interest, which must prevail over private interests....