Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raisingh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25120
1 WP-34492-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 4th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 34492 of 2025
RAISINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Santosh Kumar Meena - 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
06.06.2025 [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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25120
2 WP-34492-2025
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25120
3 WP-34492-2025
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. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by
the Sub Divisional Officer, Sujalpur, 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
jyoti
