Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 579 (MP)

Surendra Rathi v. State of M. P.

2025-09-08

PRANAY VERMA

body2025
ORDER 1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2025 [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 and the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagarparishad Akodia, District Shajapur has been directed to get an F.I.R./ criminal case registered against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, 1961 and intimate the same accordingly. 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 v. 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 petitioner was involved in unauthorized colonization he was 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 petitioner. 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. 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. 5. Further in Shivcharan (supra) it has been held that if the authority was of the opinion that the petitioner was involved in unauthorized colonization, he was 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 petitioner. In the present case also directly without adverting to the aforesaid procedure criminal case has been directed to be registered against the petitioner which in view of the aforesaid dictum cannot be upheld. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 4.8.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sujalpur, District Shajapur is hereby quashed. In consequence, the FIR registered against the petitioner is also hereby quashed. The respondents shall however, be at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.