Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aelam Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33417
1 WP-36947-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36947 of 2025
AELAM SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Muskan Dhakad - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain - Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents/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
06.06.2025 [Annexure P/1] passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shujalpur,
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.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has brought to 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33417
2 WP-36947-2025
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.
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
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:33417
3 WP-36947-2025
5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Shujalpur, District Shajapur is hereby quashed. The
respondents shall however, be at liberty to proceed afresh against the
petitioner in accordance with law.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
Shilpa
