Gaurav Bansal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
1 WP-442-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 30 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 442 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020004812026
GAURAV BANSAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain Senior Advocate with Shri Arpit Kumar Oswal,
learned counsel for the petitioners .
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Shri Aniket Naik, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 .
Shri Vishwajit Joshi - Advocate for the respondent no.6.
WHETHER REPORTABLE : YES
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"7. RELIEF SOUGHT: In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the
Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) Call for the entire record of the case from the Respondents for the kind perusal of this
Hon'ble Court.
(b) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the
impugned rejection order dated 18/12/2025 (Annexure P/20) passed by Respondent No. 2,
being illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
commanding Respondent No. 2 to forthwith issue the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for
the "Siddarth Nagar Colony" in favour of Respondent No. 6, based on the inquiry reports
dated 19/07/2023 (Annexure P/8) and 04/12/2023 (Annexure P/10), in strict compliance
with the orders of this Hon'ble Court, within a period of 15 days.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
2 WP-442-2026
(d) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction,
commanding Respondent No. 5 to forthwith issue the Work Completion Certificate for
"Siddarth Nagar Colony" immediately upon receipt of the NOC from Respondent No. 2,
within a further period of 15 days.
(e) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice,
including but not limited to the protection of the Petitioner's rights in respect of the subject
property. "

2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:
The Petitioners are bonafide residents of Siddarth Nagar Colony,
developed by Respondent No. 6 society after obtaining due exemption under
the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976[for short, referred to as
'the Act of 1976' hereinafter]. Despite two separate and concurrent inquiry
reports, one from the Co-operative Department dated 19.07.2023 and another
from the Tehsildar, Juni Indore dated 04.12.2023 , unequivocally confirming
that Respondent No. 6 has complied with all conditions of the said
exemption, the Respondent No. 2 has refused to issue the NOC. This refusal
prevents Respondent No. 5 from issuing the Work Completion Certificate,
thereby gravely prejudicing the petitioners and infringing upon their vested
property rights. The respondent has rejected the application filed by the
petitioners for issuance of NOC/Work Completion Certificate w.e.f
completion of the development work of the colony, merely on hypothetical
presumptions, rather than any affirmative evidence of breach of the terms
and conditions of the exemption granted under the the Act of 1976 .
Respondent has further observed in its order that guidance from the State
Government has been sought in the matter, however nothing of that sort has
been done and is required. Hence, the present petition is filed.
3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
3 WP-442-2026
contentions:

i) It is submitted that the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 is illegal,
arbitrary, perverse, and unsustainable in law, having been passed on mere
conjectures and hypothetical presumptions, without any affirmative evidence
demonstrating breach of the terms and conditions of the exemption granted
under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
ii) It is further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 has acted in
complete disregard of settled facts and binding material on record,
particularly the report dated 19.07.2023 submitted by the Cooperative
Inspector and the report dated 04.12.2023 submitted by the Tehsildar, Juni
Indore, both of which categorically and unequivocally confirm that there has
been no violation of the terms and conditions of the exemption order dated
03.09.1988 and that the Respondent does not even call for the record from
the Respondent No. 4, based upon which report dated 19.07.2023 has been
issued though passed impugned order as an appellate authority.
iii) It is submitted that the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Revenue
Department, by its letter No. F-1-288/7-9/88 dated 03.09.1988, granted
exemption under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act. The terms and conditions attached of the said exemption stood complied
with decades ago. Accordingly, upon a detailed and exhaustive examination
of the material available on record, the Cooperative Inspector, in his report
dated 19.07.2023, has categorically recorded that no breach of the conditions
of the exemption order is found to have been committed, but the manner and
methodology adopted by respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
4 WP-442-2026
order, in a manner as if respondent No. 2 is acting as an appellate authority

iv) It is further relevant to note that the exemption orders contained
several terms and conditions, all of which were duly complied with. Pursuant
thereto, the plots were lawfully sold to the members of the society, who have
constructed their houses and have been enjoying ownership and peaceful
possession of the properties for decades. The alleged violations referred to in
the impugned order, namely Conditions Nos. 2, 4, and 9, pertain to the
original allotments made by the society long ago. The impugned order has
been passed in a mechanical manner, without bonafide or meaningful
consideration of the facts, and without taking into account that a large
number of affected members were not afforded an opportunity of hearing. By
passing the impugned order, the respondent is seeking to unsettle a long-
settled position, to the serious prejudice of the members concerned.
v) It is also submitted that the exercise which has been carried out by
the respondent before passing of the impugned order clearly infers that in
blatant transgression of the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by this Hon'ble
Court in W.P. No. 19957 of 2025, respondent has issued further directions to
the Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative Society, Indore vide Office Note
No. 1345 dated 31.07.2025 and Letter No. 1025 dated 04.11.2025, calling for
a fresh report regarding alleged violations or non-violations of the terms and
conditions of the exemption order granted under the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, all this has been done with preconceived notion to
reject the petitioner's application.
vi) It is also pointed out that the NOC has to be issued by respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
5 WP-442-2026
No. 5 and not by respondent No. 1 and 2 but on account of an order dated

04.11.2022 passed by respondent No. 1, this report has been called by the
respondent No. 1 from respondent No. 4, who in turn submitted a positive
report, though the impugned order was passed.
vii) It is contended that the impugned order is vitiated by non-
application of mind, in as much as the respondent No. 2 has mechanically
rejected the application filed by petitioners for issuance of NOC/Work
Completion Certificate without meaningful consideration of the material on
record, and by misreading and misinterpreting the inquiry reports,
particularly the report of respondent No. 4 and the rRespondent No. 2 has
exceeded his jurisdiction and acted as an appellate authority, reassessing and
reopening issues that stood concluded decades ago pursuant to lawful
allotments and compliance with exemption conditions, despite there being no
statutory authority vested in Respondent No. 2 to do so.
viii) It is also contended that the alleged violations referred to in the
impugned order, namely Conditions Nos. 2, 4, and 9 of the exemption order,
relate to original allotments made by Respondent No. 6 society several
decades ago, and the plots were lawfully sold to members who have
constructed residential houses and have been enjoying peaceful ownership
and possession for decades, thereby creating vested and accrued rights,
which cannot be unsettled arbitrarily.
ix) It is further contended that the action of the respondents seeks to
unsettle a long- settled and concluded position, thereby causing grave civil
consequences to bonafide residents of Siddharth Nagar Colony, which is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
6 WP-442-2026
impermissible in law, particularly in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation,

or proven violation and the Respondent No. 2 has acted in blatant
disobedience of the order dated 11.07.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court in
W.P. No. 19957 of 2025, by issuing further directions to the Deputy
Commissioner, Co-operative Society, Indore vide Office Note No. 1345
dated 31.07.2025 and Letter No. 1025 dated 04.11.2025, calling for a fresh
inquiry, despite the scope of inquiry having already been concluded and
expressly restricted by this Hon'ble Court.
x) It is contended that the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional
infirmity, inasmuch as the NOC is statutorily required to be issued by
Respondent No. 5, and not by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2; nevertheless,
Respondent No. 2 has effectively usurped the powers of Respondent No. 5
and obstructed issuance of the Work Completion Certificate.
Thus the refusal to issue NOC has resulted in grave prejudice to the
petitioners as it ultimately prevented issuance of Work Completion
Certificate by the respondent no.6 thereby infringing the petitioners' right
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and petitioners' being the
bonafide purchasers and residents have a legitimate expectation that the State
authorities will act fairly, lawfully and in accordance with their own statutory
findings. The impugned order is liable to be quashed as it fails to provide any
cogent reason for disagreeing with the detailed findings of the inquiry
reports.
4. Contentions raised by the counsel for respondents no.1 to 4:
(i) It is submitted that the petitioners, by way of filing the present
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
7 WP-442-2026
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are challenging

the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 2
(Additional Collector, Indore) in Case No. 3820/Reader/2025, whereby the
application submitted by the petitioners seeking issuance of a No Objection
Certificate (NOC) for obtaining a Work Completion Certificate in respect of
"Siddarth Nagar Colony" situated at Gram Pipliyahana, Indore, has been
rejected on the grounds of non- compliance with Conditions No. 02, 04, and
09 of the statutory exemption granted under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976, and guidance has been sought from the State
Government.
(ii) It is also submitted that the petitioners allege that the colony in
question was developed by Respondent No. 6 society long ago pursuant to an
exemption order granted under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976, and that all terms and conditions attached thereto
stood fully complied with decades ago and that upon detailed inquiries
conducted by the Co-operative Department vide report dated 19.07.2023 and
the Tehsildar, Juni Indore vide report dated 04.12.2023, it was categorically
confirmed that no breach of the exemption conditions was committed, yet the
answering respondent sat tight over the matter and failed to issue the
requisite NOC despite positive recommendations.
(iii) It is further submitted that the present writ petition is completely
misconceived, devoid of any substance, and is a desperate attempt by the
petitioners to bypass and dilute mandatory statutory conditions of ceiling
exemption order and secure an undeserved NOC through judicial coercion.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
8 WP-442-2026
The petitioners cannot be permitted to claim equity or seek the indulgence of

this Court under Article 226 when the foundational welfare conditions of the
exemption specifically meant for the allotment of plots to the genuinely
marginalized Economically Weaker Section (EWS) stand brazenly violated
and unsubstantiated on official record. The petitioners are attempting to
legitimize serious statutory non-compliances under the garb of long
possession, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the
threshold with exemplary costs.
(iv) It is further submitted that the exemption granted over the land
bearing Khasra No. 560 situated at Gram Pipliyahana was not an
unconditional or blanket clearance, but was granted under Section 20 of the
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 strictly subject to mandatory
terms and conditions designed to advance public welfare and regulated social
housing. Strict adherence to each of these conditions was a mandatory
condition precedent for validating any subsequent layout, development, or
statutory clearance.
(v) It is also submitted that, this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025
passed in W.P. No. 19957 of 2025 explicitly directed the Additional
Collector, Indore to enquire into the matter and issue the NOC to the
Municipal Corporation only "in accordance with law if it is lawful to do so".
Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was not expected to act as a rubber-
stamping authority, but was under a legal obligation to examine the official
records and satisfy itself that the statutory ceiling conditions stood lawfully
fulfilled before issuing any clearance and upon receipt of the application and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
9 WP-442-2026
upon scrutinizing the official records and departmental reports, it was

revealed that foundational conditions of the ceiling exemption order,
specifically Conditions No. 02, 04, and 09, were breached and remained
unsubstantiated. Condition No. 02 required the submission and verification
of the authenticated list of members of the society of the year 1988, which is
completely absent on record. Condition No. 04 mandated the submission of
individual member affidavits/declarations before the competent authority
prior to the execution of registered sale deeds, which were not produced
across the board.
(vi) It is further submitted that Condition No. 09 strictly obligated the
society to allot 50% of the plots to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS).
The subordinate inspector's observation regarding compliance was founded
purely on an assumption drawn from the small size of plots, without any
verifiable documents establishing that the plots were in fact allotted to
genuine EWS beneficiaries. A mandatory statutory condition cannot be
deemed satisfied on mere conjectures in the absence of primary documentary
proof.
(vii) It is also submitted that the inspector has categorically recorded
in his report that no document is available to substantiate that 50% of the
plots were allotted to EWS. Moreover, the inspector in his report has
categorically found that no substantial documents were received to
corroborate compliance of respective condition in his said report dated
19.07.2023.
(viii) It is further submitted that, the allegations regarding harassment,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
10 WP-442-2026
de novo inquiries, or overreaching the orders of this Court are completely

baseless and emphatically denied. The communications addressed to the Co-
operative Department were purely administrative steps taken in good faith to
trace the old records and verify the factual position. In fact, looking to the
long passage of time and the serious nature of the statutory violations
concerning EWS allotment, the Respondent No. 2 has rightly referred the
matter to the State Government for policy guidance, demonstrating complete
bona fides rather than arbitrariness.
(ix) Lastly, it is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 (Additional
Collector, Indore) has exercised administrative discretion judiciously, in
strict good faith, and in accordance with the settled principles governing
statutory exemptions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,
1976 as well as the specific mandate issued by this Court. The impugned
order dated 18.12.2025 do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity, error
apparent on the face of the record, perversity or illegality warranting the
extraordinary intervention by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
5. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6 . The subject matter in the present petition is Siddarth Nagar
Colony, Pipliyahana, Indore, developed by Respondent No. 6 on land
exempted under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976. The development work stands completed and the petitioners, who
are residents and plot-holders in the colony, seek issuance of the Work
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
11 WP-442-2026
Completion Certificate by the Indore Municipal Corporation. The Municipal

Corporation has withheld the Work Completion Certificate only because of
the administrative communication dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Collector,
Indore, requiring a prior NOC/opinion from the Collector in cases
concerning lands exempted under the 1976 Act. Even on the enquiry
demanded by the administration, the Cooperative Inspector and the revenue
authorities reported compliance with the conditions of exemption. The
Additional Collector nevertheless rejected the Petitioners' application by the
impugned order dated 18.12.2025.
7 . The short question is whether a prior NOC from the
Collector/Cooperative Department can be insisted upon for processing and
granting the Work Completion Certificate or not. The issue is no longer res
integra. In the case of Abhishek Mittal v Indore Municipal Corporation and
Others passed in W.P. No. 16589/2025 , decided on 16.05.2025, this Court
has examined the very communication dated 04.11.2022 and the demand for
an NOC in proceedings under the applicable colony-development Rules. In
paragraphs 11 and 12, this Court has held that the Rules do not require an
NOC from the Cooperative Department; the demand rested only upon the
Collector's executive instructions and could not be sustained. The authorities
were consequently directed to process the permission without insisting upon
such NOC.
8 . The principle was further followed and applied expressly in the
order dated 03.11.2025 passed in W.P. No. 38289/2025 in the case
o f Natraj Nagar Rahvasi Sangh Vikas Committee v. Indore Municipal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
12 WP-442-2026
Corporation and Others passed The petition was allowed by reliying upon the

findings and observations made in the case of Abhishek Mittal(supra), with
the categorical clarification that no NOC from the Collector, District Indore,
is required.
9 . In the order dated 18.11.202 passed in W.P. No. 27142/2025
in the case of Landlord Estate Residents Association v. Indore Municipal
Corporation and Others, this Court further clarified that the Collector's
communication dated 04.11.2022 is merely an executive instruction,
directory and not mandatory, and is not an order issued under any enactment
or statutory Rule. The Municipal Corporation may take it into consideration,
but cannot treat itself as bound by it and must decide the matter
independently in accordance with law.
10. The same position has thereafter been reiterated in W.P. No.
9163/2026 passed on 23.04.2026 in the case of Jai Hind Grah Nirman
Sahakari Sanstha v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others wherein it has been
held that the communication dated 04.11.2022 is only directory, has no
statutory force, and cannot control the authority's decision. Thus, the legal
position is precise, an executive instruction cannot create an additional
eligibility condition or documentary requirement not prescribed by the
governing statute or Rules. The Collector's communication dated 04.11.2022
can neither be treated as a mandatory source of power to demand an NOC,
nor can the Municipal Corporation postpone performance of its statutory
function until such NOC is produced.In view of the subsequent and specific
pronouncements concerning the same communication dated 04.11.2022, the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
13 WP-442-2026
petitioners' entitlement to consideration of the Work Completion Certificate

cannot be made dependent upon an NOC from the Collector or the
Cooperative Department.
11. In this regard, the following the relevant paragraphs of following
judgments are worthy of reference and reproduced below for ready
reference:
i) In the case of Abhishek Mittal(supra), the Court has held as under:
"4. Facts of the case are that petitioner has purchased totaling 0.211 hectare
land situated at Survey Nos.392/10, 392/11 and 392/1, Patwari Hala No.5,
Village Niranjanpur, Tehsil and District Indore by way of registered sale deed
dated 02.04.2004 from Kiran Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Indore.
Thereafter, the petitioner applied and granted sanction from Town and Country
Planning Department on 21.05.2004 and later on, diversion was also allowed
on 24.05.2004. Thereafter, in the year 2025, when the petitioner intended to
develop the said land, he has approached before respondent no.2/Executive
Engineer, Colony, Cell, IMC, Indore who gave Form No.4 under Rule 8 of
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules of 2021") also informing him to obtain NOC from
concerned Co-operative Department and finally the impugned order dated
28.04.2025 has been passed directing the petitioner to obtain NOC from Co-
operative Department.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no requirement
under law to obtain NOC from Co-operative Department for the reasons that no
such NOC is prescribed under the Rules of 2021 and only one NOC is required
from the Town and Country Planning Department. Whereas under Rule 9 of
the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Registration of Coloniser, Terms and
Conditions) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1998'); three
NOCs were required to be obtained i.e. (i) Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act,
1976/ (ii) Necessary Certificate under the Madhya Pradesh Town and Country
Planning Act 1973; and (iii) From the Nazul Officer, but now, after the
amended Act of 2021, only one NOC is required from the Town and Country
Planning Department. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already
obtained the same way back in the year 2004 i.e. on 21.05.2004. Under these
facts and circumstances, there is no need to obtain two more NOCS.
6. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ji
Builders and Developers Partnership Firm vs. Madhya Pradesh Real Estate in
WP No.19852/2023 decided on 23.09.2024 wherein it is observed that Section
72-B(1)(g) of M.P. Act, 2010 has brought into force w.e.f. 04.01.2010 and is
prospective in nature, therefore, the permission is required in respect of the
land which has been sold before 04.01.2010.
7. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred para no.5 the Judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Anupam Shahakari Griha Nirman
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
14 WP-442-2026
Samithi Maryadit, Raipur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others AIR 1989
MP 163.
8. The prayer of the petitioner is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
respondent and it is submitted that the petitioner has been rightly issued the
impugned notice seeking NOC from Co-operative Department. It is also
submitted that under Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2021, the Authority
has power to obtain additional necessary information and documents. It is also
submitted that the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner in
violation of the provisions of Section 41 (A) of M.P. Co- operative Societies
Act, 1960. Therefore, no case of interference is made out and prays for
dismissal of the petition.
9. In rebuttal of the aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner submits that this
provision is not applicable in the present case and the same shall be applicable
only if any member of the Co-operative Society obtained loan from the society
and unable to pay the same, the Society may sell the such part of land to other
person.
10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioner has been issued notice
dated 28.04.2025 by the respondent No.2 Executive Engineer, Colony Cell,
Indore Municipal Corporation directing the petitioner to obtain the NOC from
the Co-operative Department, as he has purchased the land from the Co-
operative Society, namely, Kiran Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and
information is sought that whether the said society has sold the land to the
petitioner, instead of allotting the same to its members. However, on perusal of
the Rules of 1998 relied upon by the petitioner in this regard, there is no such
requirement to be obtained from the Co-operative Department, and it appears
that only as a caution and to ensure that the rights of the members of the
society be not violated, the aforesaid notice has been issued while relying upon
executive instructions dated 04.11.2022 issued by the Collector, Indore In such
circumstances, the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 cannot be sustained in
the eyes of law, and the same is hereby quashed, and the respondents are
directed to grant the permission for development of colony in accordance with
the Rules of 1998 and 2021, without insisting upon getting NOC from the
Registrar, Cooperative."

ii) In the case of MP Real Estate Regulatory Authority Bhopal Vs.
Shri Ji Builders and Developers passed in W.A. No. 2857/2024, the Division
Bench in para 27 has held as under:-
27. After carefully considering the above-mentioned legal provision, we are
the opinion the writ court has rightly held that, there is no permission of
Registrar was required for transferring of land prior to 04.01.2010. Said
amendment introduces a liability on societies to seek permission of Registrar
before entering transactions. Since liability is imposed by said amendment,
therefore, said amendment will not operate retrospectively. It will be
applicable prospectively i.e. on transactions which are done after 04.01.2010.
secondly there is no force on the argument of the appellant that the according
the provision of section 36 and 38, the previous section of registry is required
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
15 WP-442-2026
for transfer the property to other then the member of society, we are agreeing
the argument of the respondent that the above provision are required for only
the lone transitions.

(ii) In the matter of Satyam Cineplax Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. reported
in 2021 SCC Online MP 2228, the Division Bench has held in para 15 as
under:-
15. Before dealing with rival contentions on merits, it is apposite to decide the
question of availability of alternative remedy. Indisputably, an alternative
remedy is available to the petitioner against the impugned order. However, it is
noteworthy that this petition despite availability of that remedy was entertained
by this Court way back on 28.07.2014. The question involved in the present
matter is legal in nature and no factual inquiry is required. In our opinion, after
almost six years from the date present petition was entertained, it will not be
proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. We find
support in our view from the judgment of this Court reported in 1995 MPLJ
969 (Chambal Ghati Shiksha Prasar Samiti vs. State of M.P.). After
considering the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1970 (2) SCC 355
(Hriday Narain vs. ITO Bareilly), this Court came to hold as under:
"There is no dispute with the proposition that when an alternate remedy
is available then normally aggrieved party should be relegated to his
ordinary remedy provided under the statute. But there is another well
known principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court. In Hirday
Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, (1970) 2 SCC 355: AIR 1971
SC 33, the Supreme Court has held in categoric terms that if a petition is
entertained and during the pendency of the petition the remedy for
seeking alternate remedy expires then the petitioner should be heard on
merits and the parties should not be relegated to remedies under the
statute."
(Emphasis Supplied)
(iii) In the case of Alok Kumar Choubey Vs. State of M.P. reported in
2021 (1) MPLJ 348 , in paras 16 and 21 it has been held as under:-
"16. Seven well recognized exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, which
can be culled out from the afore-discussed judgments of the Supreme Court for
entertaining a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, can be
summarized thus: (i) where the writ petition has been filed for enforcement of
fundamental rights; (ii) where there has been violation of principle of natural
justice; (iii) where the order of proceedings is wholly without jurisdiction; (iv)
where the vires of any Act is under challenge; (v) where availing of alternative
remedy subjects a person to very lengthy proceedings and unnecessary
harassment; (vi) where the writ petition can be entertained despite alternative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
16 WP-442-2026
remedy if the question raised is purely legal one, there being no dispute on
facts; and (vii) where State 'or its intermediary in a contractual matter acts
against public good/interest unjustly, unfairly, unreasonably and arbitrarily.
Despite afore-noted exceptions, especially fifth and seventh of the above,
whether or not in a particular case the writ court should entertain a petition
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India rather than requiring the
petitioner to avail alternative remedy, would always depend on the facts
situation of a given case, upon the petitioner making out a strong case. If it is
shown that the facts of the case are not disputed and the Government or its
instrumentality has been found acting unjustly, unfairly and unreasonably even
in regard to its contractual obligations, the High Court would be justified in
entertaining the writ petition despite availability of alternative remedy.
21. In the facts of the case, action of the respondents in withholding the amount
of the performance guarantee (security) of the petitioner is held to be arbitrary
and unreasonable, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The respondents are therefore not justified in withholding the amount of
performance guarantee (security) deposited by the petitioner and then insisting
upon the petitioner to invoke arbitration clause rather than invoking writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When
the facts are not in dispute and it has been established to the satisfaction of this
Court that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and contrary to the relevant
stipulations in the agreement and the contract data, the availability of
alternative remedy, in the facts of the present case, cannot justify rejection of
the present writ petition on the spacious plea of alternative remedy. The
alternative remedy of dispute resolution system by way of an application to the
competent authority and thereafter to the appellate authority and then thereafter
to the Arbitration Tribunal, in the facts of the present case, cannot be taken as
an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly when Section 17 of the
Adhiniyam of 1983 bars the Tribunal from granting any interim relief. In the
facts of the present case, requiring the petitioner to go through the process of
dispute resolution system provided for under Clause 12 of the agreement,
would amount to subjecting him to lengthy proceedings without there being
any remedy of interim relief, inasmuch as the question raised in the present
writ petition is purely legal one, based on interpretation of Clause 29 of the
Contract Data and the impugned action of the respondent is totally against the
public good, being highly unjust, unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary. Clauses v,
vi & vii of the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, as enumerated in
Para-16 above, are therefore clearly attracted in the present case. Thereafter,
Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments observed that the alternative
efficacious remedy is not absoulte bar to exercise power under Article 226 of
Constitution of India where there is violation of principle of natural justice and
also action is found bad in law."

(v) In the case of M/s Shriram Builders Through its Partner
Shashibhushan Vs. Cooperative Department order dated 21.04.2025 passed
in W.P. No. 7617/2021, in para 18 and 27, it has been held as:
"18. It is well settled in law that when a statutory functionary makes an order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
17 WP-442-2026
based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons. Though the
authorities on this point are numerous but suffice it would be to refer to the
decision of the Apex Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and Another versus Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, 1978 (1) SCC 405 in which it
was held as under:-

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory
functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be
judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order
bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a
challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may
here draw attention to the observations of Bose, J. in Gordhandas Bhanji
[Commr. of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, 1951 SCC 1088:
AIR 1952 SC 16]: "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a
statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations
subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or
of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made
by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to
affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and
must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the
order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow
older."
27. The permission was granted to the society on 28.02.2003 for sale of the
land to the petitioner which was sold in the year 2003 itself. Thereafter, the
petitioner was mutated over the disputed land. It submitted plan for
development of the land which was approved by the Town and Country
Planning Department in accordance with the usage of the land. The disputed
land was proposed to be acquired for the scheme of the IDA on two occasions,
which was contested by the petitioner by institution of legal proceedings which
terminated in its favour. The disputed land has been diverted for commercial
usage and the Municipal Corporation has also granted building permission and
has approved the map for construction of building on the land for commercial
and PSP use. In that process, the Joint Registrar also verified the fact that the
land has been sold to the petitioner after due permission. An amount of
Rs.2,58,38,859/- has been deposited by the petitioner for development of the
land. As stated by the petitioner, it has already commenced the construction
work. It is hence evident that the permission dated 28.02.2003 has been acted
upon and has in fact been effectively exhausted hence after such a long lapse of
time, it is wholly illegal, unjustifiable and inequitable to revoke the same and
in fact nothing remained to be revoked."
12. In view of the above discussion the impugned order suffers from
jurisdictional infirmity, as the action of respondent authority is found to be
arbitrary, without authority of law and also violative of principles of natural
justice and passed in violation of the provisions of the Constitution of India,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30886
18 WP-442-2026
more particularly provisions of Article 14,19 and 300A of the Constitution

and, therefore, interference by this Court is required in exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
1 3 . Accordingly, the petition is allowed and by exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the impugned
order dated 18.12.2025 is hereby quashed and the Indore Municipal
Corporation is directed to process the application for 'Work Completion
Certificate' independently, strictly under the governing statutory provisions
and Rules, without insisting upon an NOC from the Collector/Cooperative
Department and shall decide the same within a period of 30 days from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this order .
14. Writ petition stands disposed off.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
sh

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 02-11-2026
18:33:59