D B K Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 11301 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

D B K Builders And Developers Pvt Ltd ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

          NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29602




                                                                1                               WP-32774-2024
                              IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                 ON THE 18 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                  WRIT PETITION No. 32774 of 2024
                           D B K BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD PURANI CHAWANI JOGI
                            MOHALLA DISTRICT GUNA THROUGH PARTNERS (1) AND OTHERS
                                                     Versus
                                    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                           Appearance:
                                 Shri Devendra Kumar Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.

                                 Ms Padamshri Agarwal - Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.

                                                                 ORDER

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 01.10.2024; whereby, while invoking the provisions of Section 339(C) of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short ''Act of 1961''), the Collector, Guna has held the petitioner to be indulged in illegal colonization and its development without due and requisite permission and the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagarpalika, Guna has been directed to get an F.I.R./ criminal case registered against the present petitioner, under the provisions of the

Act of 1961 and intimate the same accordingly.

Short facts of the case are that the land situated in Guna Tehsil, Guna town, bearing Survey No. 364/1/1/1 and Survey No. 364/1/1/2, measuring 0.478 hectares, is registered in the name of D.V.K. Builders Pvt. Ltd., Purani Chhawani, Jogi Mohalla, Guna, Partner No.1-Dujendra Singh Kushwah, son of Gazalal Kushwah and partner No.2- Dhankumar, son of Laxman Kushwah. A part of the said land was developed by the petitioner/company. However, a show-cause

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29602

2 WP-32774-2024 notice dated 19.02.2024 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was engaged in the development of an unauthorized colony without obtaining or submitting the statutory permissions required for colony development. The notice further stated that, based on the inspection report, it appeared that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Colony Development) Rules, 2021, and why an FIR should not be registered against the petitioner.

The petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply to the said notice, clarifying that no plot was ever proposed to be sold nor has any plot been sold as part of any colony development. It was categorically stated that the land in

question is already diverted, and the plots earlier sold were only due to personal necessity, with no intention whatsoever to develop or establish a colony. Despite this, the respondents proceeded with the matter, and even though the petitioner filed detailed submissions and objections to the inspection report and subsequent proceedings, the same were not duly considered. Consequently, respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty of illegal colonization under the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and has further directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are wholly contrary to the settled principles of law and are, therefore, arbitrary and mala fide . It is urged that the order has been passed without proper application of mind, despite the fact that the petitioner does not fall within the definition or purview of a "Colonizer". Nevertheless, the authorities have erroneously invoked the Colonizer Rules against the petitioner. It is further argued that the impugned

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29602

3 WP-32774-2024 order suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, as the Collector has no authority under the Municipalities Act to initiate prosecution. The power to do so vests exclusively with the Chief Municipal Officer, and thus the respondents have usurped jurisdiction not vested in them. The land in question is already diverted, and there is no material to indicate any act of colonization; yet the petitioner has been treated as guilty of illegal colonization. The order directing registration of an FIR, passed for reasons best known to the respondents, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

It is further submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, an FIR has indeed been registered against the petitioner; however, the foundational fact that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of a colonizer has been completely ignored. Consequently, the entire proceedings, including the registration of the FIR, are void ab initio and cannot stand in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in a batch of petitions, including W.P. No. 29427 of 2022, decided on 20.12.2024, wherein it has been categorically held that any prosecution for offences under the Municipalities Act or under any rule or bye-laws framed thereunder must be initiated only by filing a private complaint before the competent Magistrate, and that too by the Municipal Council, the Chief Municipal Officer, or any other officer duly authorized by the Council. The said decision continues to hold the field and squarely applies to the present case. In light of the above settled legal position, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner, without obtaining the due and requisite permissions, was carving out small plots

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29602

4 WP-32774-2024

from the said land and selling them. It is further submitted that, upon inspection, it was found that a colony-like structure along with temporary roads was being developed, thereby creating infrastructure in violation of the Government rules. In these circumstances, no illegality can be attributed to respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 has been passed in clear disregard of the settled legal principles governing initiation of prosecution under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Colony Development) Rules, 2021. This Court further finds that the Collector does not possess the statutory competence to direct prosecution or registration of an FIR under the Act of 1961. As held by this Court in W.P. No. 29427/2022 and connected matters, decided on 20.12.2024, any prosecution under the Act of 1961 or the Rules framed thereunder can only be initiated by way of a private complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate and that too by the Municipal Council, the Chief Municipal Officer, or any officer duly authorized by the Council. The said legal position continues to hold the field and squarely governs the controversy in the present case. The impugned order, having been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction, is vitiated in law.

The direction issued to the Chief Municipal Officer for registration of an FIR on the basis of such an order is equally unsustainable. Consequently, the subsequent registration of FIR, being based solely on the said order, also cannot be sustained.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:29602

5 WP-32774-2024 In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 01.10.2024 is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the settled legal position, and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2024 is hereby quashed and all consequential proceedings, including the FIR registered pursuant thereto, stand set aside.

The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised, strictly in conformity with the statutory provisions and only after adhering to due process.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

ojha