Ramprakash Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-9144-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 29 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9144 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC030109902021
RAMPRAKASH SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kartikey Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the impugned order
dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.2 in Case
No.398/B-121/2020-21, whereby directions have been issued for registration
of an FIR against the petitioner for the alleged violation of the provisions of
the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the
Bhumiswami of land bearing Survey No.109/2/3/2, situated at Gram
Malsipur, Tehsil Sironj, District Vidisha. According to the petitioner, he has
not undertaken any development or plotting activity over the aforesaid land
and has not developed any colony thereon. It is his case that respondent No.2,
on the basis of a report submitted by the revenue authorities, initiated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

2 WP-9144-2021
proceedings against him and directed registration of an FIR by invoking

Section 61-D of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993, for the alleged violation of Sections 61-A, 61-B and 61-C
of the said Adhiniyam. The petitioner contends that the aforesaid order was
passed without following due process of law, without service of notice upon
him and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 19.03.2021 is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction, as respondent
No.2 has directed registration of an FIR by invoking the provisions relating
to colonies and colonizers without establishing that the petitioner has
undertaken any activity constituting the development of a colony. It is
contended that the petitioner is the Bhumiswami of the land in question and
has neither developed any colony nor undertaken any plotting or
development activity over the said land. Learned counsel further submits that
the report of the revenue authorities, on the basis of which the impugned
action has been initiated, does not disclose any development work having
been undertaken by the petitioner. The petitioner, being the owner of the
land, is entitled to deal with his property in accordance with law, and mere
ownership of agricultural land cannot, by itself, constitute a violation of the
statutory provisions relating to the development of colonies.
Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 has wrongly
invoked Section 61-D of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram
Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, as the petitioner is not a registered colonizer and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

3 WP-9144-2021
does not fall within the definition contemplated under Section 61-A of the

said Adhiniyam. Referring to the definitions of “colony” and “colonizer” and
the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Registration of
Colonizer Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1999, it is argued that the statutory
requirements for attracting the aforesaid provisions have not been satisfied in
the present case. It is further contended that Sections 171 and 172 of the
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, relating to diversion of land,
have been omitted and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner on the basis of the alleged requirement of diversion are
unsustainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned
order has been passed without following due process of law. According to
the petitioner, no notice was served upon him and the proceedings were
conducted ex parte on the basis of the report of the revenue authorities,
without affording him an opportunity to explain his position or produce
relevant material in support of his defence. It is contended that the direction
for registration of an FIR entails serious civil and penal consequences and
could not have been issued without examining the factual foundation of the
allegations and the applicability of the statutory provisions invoked. Learned
counsel, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 and all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner’s case may be
examined in the light of the decision of this Court in Kamlesh Sharma v.
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No.14958 of 2022,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

4 WP-9144-2021
decided on 07.05.2026. In the said case, this Court considered a challenge to

proceedings initiated on allegations of illegal colony development and
examined the statutory basis of the action, the jurisdiction of the authority
and compliance with the principles of natural justice. The impugned order in
that case was quashed after the Court found that the action was founded upon
repealed or non-existent statutory provisions and suffered from jurisdictional
and procedural infirmities, while reserving liberty to the authorities to initiate
appropriate proceedings afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel
submits that the aforesaid decision supports the petitioner's contention that
penal action cannot be sustained unless it is authorised by the applicable
statutory provisions and is initiated in accordance with law.
Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State
opposes the petition and supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the
proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report submitted by the
revenue authorities and that the action was taken to prevent unauthorised
development of colonies and violation of the applicable statutory provisions.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has not made out any ground
warranting interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, dismissal
of the petition is prayed for.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
impugned order directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner can be
sustained when the action has been initiated by invoking the provisions
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

5 WP-9144-2021
relating to the development of colonies and colonizers, without adequately

examining their applicability to the petitioner's case and the legal basis for
initiating such penal proceedings.
In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of this
Court in Kamlesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ
Petition No.14958 of 2022, decided on 07.05.2026, wherein this Court
considered a challenge to proceedings initiated against the petitioner therein
for alleged illegal colony development. In the said case, the Court examined
the statutory provisions invoked by the authorities, the jurisdiction to initiate
penal action and compliance with the principles of natural justice. Finding
that the impugned action was founded upon repealed or non-existent
statutory provisions and suffered from jurisdictional infirmity and procedural
irregularities, this Court quashed the order directing registration of an FIR,
while reserving liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings
afresh in accordance with law.
The aforesaid decision emphasises that an authority exercising
statutory powers must act within the bounds of the applicable law and must
ensure that the essential ingredients of the alleged violation are satisfied
before directing action having serious civil and penal consequences. The
applicability of the statutory provisions cannot be presumed merely from an
allegation of unauthorised colony development; rather, the authority must
examine the nature of the activity alleged, the relevant statutory definitions
and the legal provisions in force at the material time.
In the present case, the petitioner has specifically disputed the very
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

6 WP-9144-2021
basis of the proceedings by asserting that no colony has been developed over

the land bearing Survey No.109/2/3/2, situated at Gram Malsipur, Tehsil
Sironj, District Vidisha, and that no development activity has been
undertaken by him. He has also disputed the applicability of the statutory
provisions relating to colonizers on the ground that he does not fall within
the relevant statutory definition. The petitioner has further questioned the
statutory basis for invoking penal provisions in relation to the alleged
diversion of land. These objections go to the root of the authority's
jurisdiction to direct registration of an FIR and, therefore, require due
consideration.
It is a settled principle that penal consequences must be founded upon
an existing and applicable provision of law. The authority concerned is
required to examine whether the facts alleged attract the statutory provisions
invoked and whether the conditions prescribed by law for initiating such
action are fulfilled. Mere ownership of land, in the absence of legally
sustainable material establishing the requisite acts constituting the alleged
violation, cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient justification for directing
criminal proceedings under the provisions in question.
The petitioner has also specifically pleaded that the impugned order
was passed without service of notice and without affording him an
opportunity of hearing. An order entailing serious civil and penal
consequences is required to be passed in accordance with the principles of
natural justice, unless their exclusion is authorised by law. The authority
concerned must ensure that the person against whom such action is proposed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

7 WP-9144-2021
is afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his position and place

relevant material on record. Compliance with such procedural safeguards
assumes significance in the present matter, particularly in view of the
petitioner's specific challenge to the manner in which the proceedings were
conducted.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and the principles considered in
Kamlesh Sharma (supra), the impugned order dated 19.03.2021, passed by
respondent No.2 in Case No.398/B-121/2020-21, cannot be sustained if the
statutory foundation for initiating penal proceedings is absent or the requisite
procedural safeguards have not been observed. The petitioner's challenge
raises substantial issues concerning the applicability of the statutory
provisions and the legality of the direction for registration of an FIR. In the
circumstances, interference in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is warranted.
Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 19.03.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.2 in Case
No.398/B-121/2020-21, is hereby quashed. All consequential actions taken
solely pursuant to the aforesaid order, including the direction for registration
of an FIR, shall also stand quashed.
However, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the respondent
authorities shall remain at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh
against the petitioner, if permissible in law, strictly in accordance with the
applicable statutory provisions and after affording him a reasonable
opportunity of hearing and an opportunity to place his defence on record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

8 WP-9144-2021
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and

disposed of. No order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM