Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lakshminarayan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22125
1 WP-31757-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 14th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 31757 of 2025
LAKSHMINARAYAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rajat Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava - Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated
28.07.2025 [Annexure P/1] passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sujalpur,
District Shajapur, whereby, while invoking the provisions of Section 339(C)
of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
''Act, 1961'') he has held that the petitioner has indulged in illegal
colonization and its development without due and requisite permission and
the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagarparishad Pankhedi, District Shajapur has
been directed to get an F.I.R./ criminal case registered against the petitioner
within a period of seven days under the provisions of the Act, 1961 and
intimate the same accordingly.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has brought to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22125
2 WP-31757-2025
notice of this Court judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court at Gwalior Bench in W.P. No.29427 of 2022 (Shivcharan vs.
State of M.P. and others) and other connected petitions to contend that
therein it has already been held that the Competent Authority under Madhya
Pradesh Nagarpalika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021 is the Collector.
The Sub Divisional Officer hence could not have passed the impugned order
even if the same was as per the direction or approval of the Collector. It is
only the Collector who under the Rules could have taken the proceedings and
passed order and there is no power of delegation in him. It is further
submitted that even if it was held that the petitioner was involved in
unauthorized colonization he was required to be issued a notice of fifteen
days for removal of development/construction and thereafter to send
intimation to the concerned Sub-Registrar to stop registration of
sale/agreement to sale in the said colony and Sub Divisional Officer was not
authorized to directly ask the Chief Municipal Officer to register a criminal
case against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that there is
no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer
which is as per the approval and directions of the Collector. He however
could not dispute that the Competent Authority under the Rules, 2021 is the
Collector and that the procedure as has been held by this Court in the case of
Shivcharan (supra) has not been complied with.
4. In Shivcharan (supra) it has been categorically held that under the
Rules, 2021 it is only the Collector who would be the Competent Authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22125
3 WP-31757-2025
for exercising the power under Rule 22 as per definition contained under
Section 2(c) of the Rules. Under the Rules it is the Collector who is required
to take the entire proceedings himself such as issuance of notice, seeking
reply and hearing the parties concerned. There is no provision in the Rules or
in the Act, 1961 itself conferring power of delegation upon the Collector in
favour of any subordinate officer. It is not the case of the respondents that
any delegation of power in favour of the Sub Divisional Officer has been
made by the State Government under Section 345 of the Act, 1961. Thus
even if impugned order has been passed with the approval or direction of the
Collector it cannot be said that the same has been passed by the Competent
Authority. As has been held in Shivcharan (supra) it is the Collector and/or
Additional Collector who would be the Competent Authority.
5. Further in Shivcharan (supra) it has been held that if the authority
was of the opinion that the petitioner was involved in unauthorized
colonization, he was required to be issued a notice of fifteen days for
removal of development/construction and thereafter to send intimation to
the concerned Sub-Registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sale
in the said colony and the Sub Divisional Officer was not authorized to
directly ask the Chief Municipal Officer to register a criminal case against
the petitioner. In the present case also directly without adverting to the
aforesaid procedure criminal case has been directed to be registered against
the petitioner which in view of the aforesaid dictum cannot be upheld.
6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Sujalpur, District Shajapur is hereby quashed. In
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:22125
4 WP-31757-2025
consequence, the FIR registered against the petitioner is also hereby quashed.
The respondents shall however, be at liberty to proceed afresh against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa/jc
