Madhya Pradesh High Court
Makhan Singh vs The State Of Mp Through Principal ... on 26 August, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23693
1 WP-33737-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 26th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33737 of 2025
MAKHAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MP THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anirudh Saxena - Advocate for the petitioners.
Dr. Amit Bhatia - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been preferred by the petitioners 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 petitioners have
indulged in illegal colonization and its development without due and
requisite permission and the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Parishad
Pankhedi, District Shajapur has been directed to get an F.I.R./ criminal
case registered against the petitioners within a period of seven days
under the provisions of the Act, 1961 and intimate the same accordingly.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has brought to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23693
2 WP-33737-2025
the 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 petitioners were involved in unauthorized
colonization they were 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 petitioners.
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23693
3 WP-33737-2025
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 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 petitioners were involved in
unauthorized colonization, they were 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 petitioners. In the present case also directly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:23693
4 WP-33737-2025
without adverting to the aforesaid procedure criminal case has been
directed to be registered against the petitioners 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 consequence, the FIR registered against the petitioners is
also hereby quashed. The respondents shall however, be at liberty to
proceed afresh against the petitioners in accordance with law.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
