Bhopal Municipal Corporation vs Musa Ahmed Partner And Authorized Signatory

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
1 WP-25669-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
th
ON THE 30 OF JULY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 25669 of 2024
M/S SUPER BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate, with Shri Devansh Verma
- Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Dheerendra Mishra & Anvesh Shrivastava Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Shri Bramhadatt Singh - Additional Advocate General and Shri Ankit
Upadhyay - Advocate for respondent No.4, 5 and 6.
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION CIVIL No. 2625 of 2026
BHOPAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Versus
MUSA AHMED PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Upadhyay - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Anvesh Shrivastava & Shri Dheerendra Mishra - Advocate
for respondent No.3.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
2 WP-25669-2024
Shri Bramhadatt Singh - Additional Advocate General for

respondent/State.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
preferred by the petitioner, a real estate developer, assailing the legality and
jurisdictional competence of the order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the
Collector, District Bhopal (Respondent No. 3), and the consequential
executive order dated 27.08.2024 passed by the City Planner, Bhopal
Municipal Corporation (Respondent No. 6), whereby the building
permission validly granted on 22.06.2022 in favour of the petitioner for its
residential project "Courtyard Heights" situated at Khasra Nos. 74/2/2 and
75/2, Village Koh-e-Fiza, Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal, has been
summarily revoked. The revocation is founded on the alleged violation of
the 50 metre buffer zone restrictions applicable to the Bhoj Wetland/Upper
Lake and an unparticularised allegation of misrepresentation.
2. The petitioner obtained a complete, unbroken chain of statutory
permissions prior to commencing construction on the project site. Planning
approval was granted under Section 30(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar
Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 read with Rule 27 of the Madhya
Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 2012 on 23.02.2021. In response to queries
regarding wetland clearances, the M.P. State Wetlands Authority, vide
communication dated 26.07.2021, explicitly clarified that it has no statutory
role or power under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
3 WP-25669-2024
2017 to issue independent No-Objection Certificates, and advised the

municipal corporation to examine and decide the layout and building case at
its own level as per rules. Subsequently, the M.P. Pollution Control Board
granted Consent to Establish under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 on 24.07.2024. Municipal development
permissions were issued on 15.12.2021, culminating in the final Building
Permission granted by the Bhopal Municipal Corporation on 22.06.2022
under Rule 27 of the Rules of 2012.
3. Certain third parties approached the National Green Tribunal in
O.A. No. 32/2023 (CZ) and O.A. No. 45/2024 (CZ), alleging that the project
encroaches upon the 50 metre buffer zone of the Upper Lake. Pursuant to the
Tribunal's directions, a Joint Inspection Committee submitted a report on
14.07.2023, measuring distances using the commercial Google Earth
application. The Committee itself recorded that Google Earth measurements
were prone to errors on account of shadowing and explicitly recommended
independent physical field demarcation by the Revenue Department using an
Electronic Total Station (ETS) or DGPS. It is a matter of record that no
verified field demarcation was conducted prior to executive action. Acting
on such provisional reports, the Collector passed the order dated 16.08.2024,
leading to the municipal corporation's consequential revocation order dated
27.08.2024 under Rule 25 of the Rules of 2012, alleging misrepresentation
and buffer-zone violation.
4. The respondent/State and the Bhopal Municipal Corporation have
filed their returns defending the impugned actions. The Municipal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
4 WP-25669-2024
Corporation contends that its role was strictly limited to issuing building

permissions based on prior layouts, TNCP approvals and documents
furnished by the developer, and that once the District Collector and expert
committees established via DGPS measurements that a portion of the
construction infringed the 50-metre restricted zone of the Upper Lake, the
municipal body was legally bound to invoke Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhoomi
Vikas Niyam, 2012 to revoke the permit. The State respondents similarly
contend that the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017
strictly prohibit permanent construction within 50 metres of the Full Tank
Level (FTL) of a designated Ramsar site, and that demarcation via DGPS
conclusively proved the encroachment, rendering the writ petition liable to
be dismissed.
5. The cornerstone of the petitioner's challenge rests on a strict
demarcation of statutory powers under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal
Corporation Act, 1956 and the Madhya Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas Niyam,
2012. To appreciate the want of authority in the municipal functionaries, it is
apposite to extract the relevant statutory provisions.
Section 299 - The Commissioner may before any work has been
commenced in pursuance of any permission granted by it under section 293
revoke such permission and may give fresh permission in lieu thereof on
such conditions, in accordance with this Act and rules, and byelaws made
thereunder, with reference to the matters mentioned in the said section as it
thinks proper, and may direct that the work shall not be proceeded with
unless and until all questions connected with the respective location of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
5 WP-25669-2024
building and any street have been decided to its satisfaction.

299-A. Power of State Government to cancel or revise permission for
construction of a building.- If it is found that any permission for construction
of a building has been given in violation of any provision of this Act or rules
or byelaws made there under or in the opinion of the State Government it is
necessary in the public interest that the permission granted by the
Municipality deserves to be cancelled or revised the State Government shall
have power to cancel or revise such permission and on such cancellation or
revision, as the case may be, any construction contrary to the order regarding
cancellation or revision shall be deemed to be without permission and shall
be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules
made there under.
Provided that no such order shall be passed unless the aggrieved party
has been given an opportunity of being heard.
25. Revocation of permission.- The Authority may suspend or
revoke any permission granted by it under the provisions of these rules if it
has reasons to believe that such permission has been obtained on the
basis of a false statement or any misrepresentation of any material fact
or that the conditions imposed in the permission have been violated or that
the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder have not been observed :
Provided that no such order shall be passed unless the person who
obtained such permission has been given an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that such order of revocation or suspension may be
annulled if the applicant cures the violation of the Act or the rules or any
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
6 WP-25669-2024
conditions imposed in the permission. However where the permission has

been obtained on the basis of a false statement or any misrepresentation of
any material fact no such order of revocation shall be annulled.
6. A harmonious and literal reading of the aforesaid statutory
provisions reveals an unmistakable legislative design. Section 299 vests in
the Commissioner only a limited, pre-commencement power to revoke a
permission and grant a fresh one in its stead exercisable strictly before any
work has been commenced, and confined to matters connected with the
location of the building qua the street. It confers no power whatsoever on the
Commissioner or any municipal functionary to cancel a permission after
construction has been raised pursuant to it. That distinct and larger power to
cancel or revise a permission already acted upon, on the ground of violation
of the Act, rules or bye-laws, or on grounds of public interest is conferred
exclusively on the State Government by Section 299-A, and even that power
is circumscribed by the mandatory proviso requiring that no such order be
passed unless the aggrieved party has been given an opportunity of being
heard. In stark contrast, Respondent No. 6 (City Planner) has sought to
invoke Rule 25 of the Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 2012 to cancel the permit after
construction had already progressed. Rule 25 operates within the domain of
administrative sanctioning by the sanctioning authority, but it cannot
override, nullify, or bypass the substantive statutory scheme engrafted in
Sections 299 and 299-A of the parent municipal legislation, under which the
power to cancel a permission once construction has commenced rests solely
with the State Government. Where the legislature has explicitly reserved this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
7 WP-25669-2024
drastic power to the State Government alone, subject to a mandatory

hearing, a subordinate municipal functionary cannot usurp that power under
the guise of a subordinate rule.
7. Applying the above to the facts of the present case, the building
permission was granted on 22.06.2022, construction commenced and
progressed thereafter, and it was only on 27.08.2024 that the City Planner
(Respondent No. 6) proceeded to cancel the permit by executive fiat. At that
stage, Section 299 had no application construction having already
commenced, the Commissioner's limited pre-commencement power to
revoke and re-grant permission was no longer available and only the State
Government, acting under Section 299-A after affording an opportunity of
hearing, could have lawfully cancelled the permission. This action is coram
non judice, having been passed by an authority possessing no inherent or
delegated jurisdiction under Section 299-A of the Act of 1956. An authority
acting beyond its statutory boundaries creates a nullity, directly infringing
the constitutional guarantee under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India,
which mandates that no person shall be deprived of property save by
authority of law. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar
Shah & Ors., 2024 INSC 435 : Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024, decided on
16.05.2024, while examining the true content of "authority of law" occurring
in Article 300-A, the Supreme Court held as under:
"27. What then are these sub-rights or strands of this swadeshi
constitutional fabric constituting the right to property? Seven such sub-rights
can be identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are: i) duty of the State to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
8 WP-25669-2024
inform the person that it intends to acquire his property the right to notice,

ii) the duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition – the right to be
heard, iii) the duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to
acquire the right to a reasoned decision, iv) the duty of the State to
demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose the duty to acquire
only for public purpose, v) the duty of the State to restitute and
rehabilitate the right of restitution or fair compensation, vi) the duty of the
State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed
timelines of the proceedings the right to an efficient and expeditious
process, and vii) final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting the
right of conclusion. 28. These seven rights are foundational components of a
law that is in tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or
some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge. The judgment
of this Court in K.T. Plantations (supra) declares that the law envisaged
under Article 300A must be in line with the overarching principles of rule of
law, and must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course, precedentially
sound to describe some of these sub-rights as 'procedural', a nomenclature
that often tends to undermine the inherent worth of these safeguards. These
seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content
of the right to property under Article 300A, non-compliance of these will
amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law. 29.
These sub-rights of procedure have been synchronously incorporated in laws
concerning compulsory acquisition and are also recognised by our
constitutional courts while reviewing administrative actions for compulsory
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
9 WP-25669-2024
acquisition of private property. The following will demonstrate how these

seven principles have seamlessly become an integral part of our Union and
State statutes concerning acquisition and also the constitutional and
administrative law culture that our courts have evolved from time to time."
8. Applying the aforesaid principle, the impugned cancellation of the
petitioner's building permission by an authority devoid of jurisdiction,
without notice, without hearing, and without a reasoned decision founded on
verified material, squarely violates the sub-rights of notice, hearing and
reasoned decision recognised above as constituting the very content of
Article 300-A, thereby rendering the impugned action without the authority
of law.
9. The entire foundation of the respondents' case rests on the premise
that the project falls within 50 metres of the wetland boundary. A close
examination of environmental jurisprudence reveals a fatal flaw in how "Full
Tank Level" (FTL) and "Mean High Flood Level" (MHFL) have been
treated in this case. In water body and wetland management, Full Tank Level
represents the maximum storage level of a water reservoir under normal
operational conditions. However, ecological buffer zones concerning major
water bodies such as the Bhoj Wetland (a designated Ramsar site) are legally
and scientifically anchored to the Mean High Flood Level or the highest
historical flood contour, as fluctuating monsoonal swells dictate real
ecological boundaries.
10. In the present case, the Joint Inspection Committee initially relied
on the commercial Google Earth application, noting substantial structural
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
10 WP-25669-2024
shadowing and explicitly recommending physical ground demarcation via

Electronic Total Station or DGPS. Despite this caution, executive action was
rushed through. More critically, official RTI responses obtained from the
Lake Conservation Cell and the Water Works Department of the Municipal
Corporation, Bhopal (Annexures P/11 and P/12) categorically verified that
no authenticated records or baseline data of the Mean High Flood Level of
the Upper Lake for the preceding ten years are maintained by the
Corporation.
11. It is a well recognised principle of administrative law that the
fixation of a buffer zone around a water body or wetland, and any
consequential adverse civil action grounded thereon, must rest upon a
scientifically justified and properly verified methodology. A determination
arrived at through a process that is internally inconsistent, or that lacks any
scientific or verifiable basis, cannot be sustained in law. Executive action
visiting a citizen with a serious and irreversible civil consequence such as
the revocation of a validly sanctioned building permit must be founded on
objective, ascertainable, and verified material, it cannot rest on conjecture,
approximation, or a methodology that is inherently unreliable.
12. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case,
the exercise undertaken by the Joint Inspection Committee reliance on the
commercial Google Earth application, an admittedly error-prone tool on
account of structural shadowing, coupled with the total absence of any
authenticated baseline Mean High Flood Level data with the Corporation is
precisely the kind of internally inconsistent and scientifically unverified
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
11 WP-25669-2024
methodology that cannot, in law, found a buffer-zone determination, much

less one visiting the petitioner with an adverse civil consequence of this
magnitude. The destruction of a multi-crore real estate asset and the
revocation of a legally acquired building permit cannot be founded upon
digital estimates, shadows, or unverified assumptions where the very data
required to draw the buffer line does not officially exist, and where the field
demarcation recommended by the Committee's own report was never carried
out.
13. Applying the principle laid down in Kolkata Municipal
Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (supra), the impugned action of
Respondent No. 6 suffers from a dual infirmity: firstly, it has been taken by
an authority devoid of jurisdiction under Section 299-A of the Act of 1956;
and secondly, even assuming such jurisdiction existed, it has been exercised
in a mechanical and summary manner, without a reasoned decision founded
on verified baseline data and without affording the petitioner a meaningful
opportunity of hearing to demonstrate that no encroachment upon the true
MHFL-based buffer exists in direct violation of the sub-rights of notice,
hearing and reasoned decision recognised by the Supreme Court as
constituting the very content of Article 300-A.
14. A permission validly granted after due scrutiny cannot be recalled
on a bare, unparticularised, and omnibus allegation of "misrepresentation."
Annexure P/2A conclusively demonstrates that the State Wetland Authority
itself had clarified as early as July 2021 that it possesses no role in issuing
NOCs under the Rules of 2017, leaving the municipal body to decide the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
12 WP-25669-2024
case on merits. The allegation of concealment is, in the circumstances,

wholly baseless and perverse.
15. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that
the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by Respondent No. 3
(Annexure P/7) and the consequential revocation order dated 27.08.2024
passed by Respondent No. 6 (Annexure P/8) are wholly without jurisdiction,
arbitrary and unsustainable in law, being violative of Section 299-A of the
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, the principles of natural
justice, and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
16. Rule 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012
provides Deviation from sanctioned plan.- (1) No deviation from the
sanctioned plan shall be permissible if the construction involved in such
deviation, (f) comes within 30 meters, or such distance from the bank of
water bodies as may be prescribed in the respective development plan. This
rule clearly provides that the distance of the construction from the river and
Talab should be 30 meters.
17. Order dated 16/3/2022, passed under the Environment (Protection)
Act, 1986 by the State Government, whereby the Government has notified
the Bhoj Wetland. According to that, the FTL is 50 meters and the buffer to
the minor stream is 9 meters. In the above notification, the name of Shirin
River was not mentioned as a wetland or its minor stream. During the
arguments, respondent No. 6 did not dispute the above facts that the Bhoj
Talab comes under the wetland and Shirin River does not come under the
definition of wetland. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 also justified the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
13 WP-25669-2024
sanction given to the petitioner, and he fairly submitted that the Collector,

Bhopal, issued a letter to take action against the officer who granted the
permission; therefore, he cancelled the permission. It means there was no
ground to cancel the permission on record under Rule 25 of the Madhya
Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012. The National Green Tribunal gave a
direction to the Collector for the measurement of only the disputed
construction on the complaint of some person who approached the Tribunal
(later on, he withdrew the intervention application before this Court). The
Tribunal does not give power to the Collector to issue directions to the
authority to cancel the permission. Suo motu, the Collector, beyond his
jurisdiction, declared the construction to be illegal. The construction was not
found to be beyond the permission granted by the authority. The
construction permission has been declared illegal by the Collector beyond
his jurisdiction.
18. According to the GPS measurement, the distance from Bhoj Talab
is 1857, equal to 54.60 meters, and from Shirin River is 1850, equal to 46.80
meters, as per the direction given by the order dated 16/3/2022 passed under
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
19. The inquiry team, constituted by the Collector pursuant to the
direction of the NGT, submitted a report only on the ground that the distance
from Shirin River was less than 50 meters. That observation is incorrect
because Shirin River is not notified as a wetland. Secondly, the distance
from the minor stream is only 9 meters, and as per Section 12 of the M.P.
Bhumi Vikas Niyam, 2012, the distance from the river should be only 30
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
14 WP-25669-2024
meters. Therefore, the construction permission was according to the Rules,

and the authority cancelled it beyond its jurisdiction only under the pressure
of the Collector. Therefore, the cancellation of the permission is bad in law.
20. Even if the respondents' own case on the point of distance is taken
at face value, the position does not improve for them. It stands admitted, and
is not disputed even by learned counsel for the respondents during
arguments, that the measured distance of the project from the Bhoj Talab
(Upper Lake) works out to 54.60 metres, and the distance from the Shirin
River works out to 46.80 metres. Applying the respondents' own admitted
figures to the statutory and notified benchmarks, namely, the 50-metre FTL-
based buffer prescribed for the Bhoj Wetland under the notification dated
16.03.2022 issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the 30
metre buffer prescribed under Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas
Niyam, 2012 for streams falling outside the notified wetland (the Shirin
River admittedly not being a notified minor stream of the wetland), it is
evident that the construction lies beyond both applicable buffer limits 54.60
metres exceeding the 50 metre FTL buffer, and 46.80 metres far exceeding
the 9-metre stream buffer. This position gains further credence from the fact
that, as already noticed, the official RTI responses obtained from the Lake
Conservation Cell and the Water Works Department of the Municipal
Corporation, Bhopal (Annexures P/11 and P/12) categorically confirm that
no authenticated baseline record of the Mean High Flood Level of the Upper
Lake for the preceding ten years is even maintained by the Corporation, so
that the respondents possess no verified data of their own capable of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
15 WP-25669-2024
displacing the distance admitted before this Court. Thus, even accepting the

respondents' own data as correct and without calling into question the
reliability of the methodology by which it was arrived at, no case of
encroachment upon the protected buffer zone is made out, and the finding
recorded by the Joint Inspection Committee cannot be sustained.
21. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure
P/7) and the revocation order dated 27.08.2024 (Annexure P/8) are hereby
quashed and set aside. Consequently, this petition is allowed, and the
Building Permission dated 22.06.2022 granted in favour of the petitioner
stands restored.
22. No order as to costs.
23. During the pendency of this petition, interim protection was
granted vide order dated 02.09.2024, directing that status quo be maintained
by the parties. On the allegation that the said status quo order was violated,
Contempt Petition No. 2625/2026, arising out of the present writ petition,
was instituted, and notices were issued therein. In the course of the said
contempt proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner tendered an
unconditional apology, which was accepted subject to payment of cost of
Rs.10,000/-. Since this petition has now been finally allowed on merits and
the Building Permission dated 22.06.2022 stands restored, the very
foundation of the impugned orders dated 16.08.2024 and 27.08.2024, on the
strength of which the alleged non-compliance was premised, no longer
survives. In view of the final disposal of the writ petition on merits, the cost
of Rs.10,000/- imposed while accepting the apology is hereby waived.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:58265
16 WP-25669-2024
Contempt Petition No. 2625/2026 also stands disposed of, and the notices

issued therein are discharged.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
8/5/2026 12:01:44 PM