Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vijay Chandrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23585
1 WP-33664-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 22nd OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33664 of 2025
VIJAY CHANDRAWAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kuldeep Pathak - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aniruddha Malpani - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Collector, District Dewas, whereby invoking the
provisions of Rule 22(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Colony
Development) Rules, 2021 framed in exercise of power conferred under
Sections 339-A, 339-B, 339-B(a), 339-C, 339-E and 339-G read with
Sections 355 and 356 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, he has directed
the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bagli, District Dewas to take
appropriate penal action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has brought to the
notice of this Court judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench
of this Court at Gwalior in W.P. No.29427/2022 (Shivcharan Vs. State of
M.P. and Others) and other connected petitions to contend that even if it was
held that the petitioner was involved in unauthorized colonization, he was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23585
2 WP-33664-2025
required to be issued a notice of 15 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 could not have been directly authorized to
register criminal case against the petitioner.
03. Learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that there
is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Collector. He however
could not dispute the proposition that the procedure as has been interpreted
by this Court in the case of Shivcharan (Supra) has not been complied with.
04. In Shivcharan (Supra) it has been categorically held that if the
authority is of the opinion that the petitioner is involved in unauthorized
colonization, he is required to be issued a notice of 15 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 could not have been straightway authorized to
register a criminal case against the petitioner. While holding as aforesaid,
this Court has relied upon the provisions of Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Rules,
2021 which are as under:
"(3) In case, no satisfactory reply is received within the prescribed time period,
competent authority may issue final notice, giving time 15 days' time for
removal of development/construction and also send intimation to the concerned
sub-registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sell in the said colony.
General public shall also be warned by a public notice through publication in
local newspaper, to not get involved in any sale/purchase in the said colony.
Clear details of unauthorized colony and is location shall be included in the
public notice.
(4) In case, the development/construction is not removed in the unauthorised
colony within the period specified in sub-rule (3) hereinabove, the competent
authority shall take action for removal of the development/construction and
also file complaint against the developer and landowner in the concerned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23585
3 WP-33664-2025
police station for taking necessary penal action under the relevant provisions of
the Act."
05. In the present case also, directly without adverting to the aforesaid
procedure, criminal proceedings have been directed to be initiated against
the petitioner which in view of the aforesaid dictum cannot be upheld.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed
by the Collector is hereby quashed. The Collector is directed to reconsider
the objections as have been taken by the petitioner in his reply and so also
the grounds as have been raised in this petition and to afford opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to decide the matter afresh in
accordance with law and in view of the observations as made hereinabove.
06. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
