SURENDRA RATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dtd. 4/8/2025 [Annexure P/1] passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sujalpur, District Shajapur, whereby, while invoking the provisions of Sec. 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 dtd. 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 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.