Shrimant Maharaja Tukojirao Puar Religious And Charitable Trust Through Its Trustee Smt. Gayatriraje vs Indore Municipal Corporation

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
1 WP-13721-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 13721 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020144662026
SHRIMANT MAHARAJA TUKOJIRAO PUAR RELIGIOUS AND
CHARITABLE TRUST THROUGH ITS TRUSTEE SMT. GAYATRIRAJE
Versus
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Vijay Kumar Asudani, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shashank Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :-
7. RELIEFS PRAYED FOR :-
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner respectfully prays
that it will be in the interest of justice and fitness of things if this Hon'ble
Court may kindly be pleased to:
i) Quash and set aside the order dated 06.04.2026 (Annex.P-13) passed by
respondent;
ii) Direct the respondent to allow the petitioner's application dated
09.08.2021 (Annexure P-3) for conversion of lease hold rights to free hold
rights.
iii) Allow this Writ Petition with costs; and
iv) Any other or further order as may be deemed fit to this Hon’ble Court
in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in
favor of the Petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
2 WP-13721-2026

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. It It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a public trust, duly
registered with the Registrar of Public Trusts on 24.03.1960 under the provisions
of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that a lease deed was executed by Respondent No. 1 in
favour of the petitioner on 28.04.2018 in respect of land admeasuring 35,396 sq.
ft. situated at Block No. 21-22, Old Palasia, Indore (“the Land”). Consequent
thereto, the name of the petitioner was mutated over the Land in accordance with
the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal (Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rules,
2016 (“Rules, 2016”). He has further submitted that on 09.08.2021, the petitioner
submitted an application under Rule 20 of the Rules, 2016 before Respondent
No.1, seeking the conversion of leasehold rights in respect of the Land into
freehold rights. Thereafter, on 11.03.2024, the In-Charge, Lease Cell, Nagar
Palika Nigam, Indore issued a letter requesting the petitioner to submit certain
documents, including an affidavit, property tax receipts, lease rental receipts, and
an authorization letter. In response to the said letter, the petitioner submitted all
the required documents along with a covering letter on 18.03.2024.
4. Further correspondence was made by the In-Charge of the Lease Cell,
Nagar Palika Nigam, on 15.04.2024, requesting the Petitioner to supply copies of
the proceedings in RCS No.101A/2021, which is pending before the Court of the
Learned District Judge, Dewas. In response, the Petitioner issued a letter on
16.04.2024, submitting a copy of the plaint in the aforementioned civil
suit. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 addressed a communication to the Petitioner
on 08.10.2024, intimating that owing to the pendency of the said civil suit, no
action could be taken with respect to the Petitioner’s application for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
3 WP-13721-2026
conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights. The Petitioner duly replied to

this communication vide a letter dated 18.10.2024. Subsequently, on 19.12.2024,
the Respondent issued a letter whereby the Petitioner's application was rejected
without affording any opportunity of being heard, on the sole ground that the
pendency of the aforesaid civil suit constituted a violation of Rule 20(5)(v) of the
Rules, 2016(for short ..."Rules 2016").
5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that,
being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2024, the petitioner preferred W.P.
No.31822/2025 before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was disposed of
vide order dated 13.11.2025, directing the competent authority under Rule 20(4)
read with Rule 2(b) of the Rules to pass an order in accordance with the law
within a period of three months. Learned counsel further contended that despite
these directions, the Commissioner passed the impugned order rejecting the
petitioner's application for the conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights.
The rejection was grounded on the premise that since a civil suit is pending, the
application for conversion cannot be entertained under Rule 20 of the Rules,
2016. It is submitted that Rule 20 of the Rules, 2016 merely prescribes the
pendency of a civil suit as a factor for consideration, rather than a mandatory bar
against conversion. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
no objection has been raised by any other party. Merely upon being asked by
the Corporation, the petitioner provided a copy of the plaint. Even in the
earlier round of litigation, a similar order was passed by the respondent by
relying on Rule 20(5) of the Rules, 2016. Although this Court had directed
the authority to reconsider the matter, they unfortunately rejected the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
4 WP-13721-2026
application for converting leasehold rights into freehold rights by relying on

the pending suit proceedings. He has, therefore, submitted that there cannot
be any absolute bar, especially since no interim injunction is operating in the
said suit proceedings. Furthermore, the proceedings concerning interim
prayers were confirmed up to the Supreme Court. Consequently, there is no
valid reason for not considering the petitioner's case in an appropriate
manner. He has, therefore, submitted that an appropriate order may be passed
to quash the impugned action of the respondent, which was otherwise passed
in a mechanical manner and without properly considering the material
available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation, on the other
hand, has opposed the same and has submitted that the Corporation has
rightly relied on Rule 20(5). He has submitted that since a civil suit seeking a
declaration and permanent injunction is pending before the Competent Court,
the rights over the property, which was gifted/transferred to the present
petitioner(a Trust) by only one of the co-sharers, which is given to the
present petitioner, who is Trust by one of the sharer will necessarily require
adjudication in the said suit before the petitioner's application can be
considered. He further submitted that when there is specific provision
provided under Rule 20(5), there is no reason to interfere with the impugned
order, as the Commissioner has decided the proceedings in accordance with
law and upon proper consideration of the material on record, more
particularly, the plaint of the pending civil suit. Therefore, he submitted that
no interference is warranted.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
5 WP-13721-2026
8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and I have

also perused the record.
9. For ready reference, Rule 20(5) (v) of Madhya Pradesh Municipal
(Achal Sampatti Antaran) Rules, 2016 (“Rules, 2016”) is reproduced as
under :-
Rule - 20. Right to conversion.
(5)On receipt of the application, the Chief Executive Officer shall issue a
public notice inviting objections for the conversion of such land by giving
15 days time in at least two news papers of which one shall be a Hindi
News paper and also display on the notice board of Municipal
Corporation/Municipal Council/Nagar Parishad/Collector and
Commissioner's offices and the following points shall be taken into
consideration for hearing the objections that-
......
.....
(v) an affidavit to this effect has been filed by the lessee that no case
involving land under conversion is pending before any Court or Authority;
10. Rule 20 (4) read with Rule 2(b) of the Rules, speaks as under
:-
20(4) Chief Executive Officer shall be the authorized officer for
conversion, who shall be empowered to convert the lease hold rights
into the freehold right under the provisions of these rules.
Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 2016 speaks as under :-
Rule - 2. Definitions.
b. "Chief Executive Officer" means the Municipal
Commissioner in case of a Municipal Corporation and
Chief Municipal Officer in case of a Municipal Council
or a Nagar Parishad;
11. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is a trust holding
leasehold rights and seeking the conversion of these rights into freehold
rights. This position is evident from the prayers in the pending suit
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
6 WP-13721-2026
proceedings ( RCS No.101A/2021 ), in which the Trustees, among others, have

been impleaded as parties. The prayers in the said suit primarily concern the
determination of shares in the subject property.
12. For a proper consideration of the submissions made hereinabove,
Para 28 of the plaint in the proceedings of RCS No.101A/2021 is reproduced
below:
28. That, the Plaintiff claims following reliefs from this Hon'ble Court :-
I. Declaration of 1/4" share of Plaintiff in the suit property.
11. Declaration of the Will dated 06.06.1988 as null and void.
III. Declaration of the right of the Plaintiff to be appointed as a Trustee of
Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar Vishwasrao Senadhu-Randhar
Religious and Charitable Trust.
IV. Declaration of transfer of properties in favour of the Defendant nos.6
and 7 Trusts as mentioned in Schedule III as null and void.
V. Decree for Partition by metes and bounds and possession of 1/4th share
in suit property.
VI. Decree for sharing 1/4 share from the Sale Proceeds received by
Defendant no. 1 to 3 or inherited by them from Late Shri Tukojirao Puar.
VII. Decree for sharing 1/4 Share in the Mesne Profit earned by Defendant
no. 1 to 3 from the properties of Late Shri Krishnajirao Puar.
VIII. Permanent injunction against the Defendant no. 1 to 5 restraining
them from alienating or creating third party interest, by any mode with
regard to the suit property.
IX. Cost of the Suit be awarded so the Plaintiff.
13. Considering the fact that the essential grievance in this matter
pertains to the decree for a 1/4th share of the sale proceeds received or
inherited by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from Late Shri Tukojirao Puar. The
plaintiff has also prayed for a declaration that they hold a 1/4th share, and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
7 WP-13721-2026
that the Will dated 06.06.1988 is null and void. Furthermore, the plaintiff

seeks a declaration regarding their right to be appointed as a trustee of the
'Shrimant Jagdeo Rao Pawar Anand Rao Pawar, Vishwas Rao Senadhu-
Randhar Religious and Charitable Trust'. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
order passed by the authority is completely baseless. However, the authority
failed to provide cogent and convincing reasons as to why the outcome of the
civil suit is pivotal to the consideration of the application under Section 20,
which was filed for the conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights. This
omission is particularly notable because, in an earlier round of litigation, this
Court interfered with the matter and remanded it back for fresh
consideration. It appears that the respondent/authority passed the impugned
order without assigning proper reasoning. While the pendency of the suit was
cited as a ground, the authority failed to demonstrate how that litigation
dynamically affects or disentitles the applicant from receiving the benefit of
converting the leasehold rights of the land in question into freehold rights.
14. Considering these aspects, it is now a well-settled position that
administrative orders passed by authorities, or quasi-judicial orders passed
by any quasi-judicial body, are required to provide proper reasons for
reaching their conclusions. In the present proceedings, it appears that such
reasoning is lacking. Although this Court is not, at this juncture, in a position
to form a definitive opinion regarding either the contentions raised by the
respondent or the basis of the rejection order, more particularly concerning
the reliance placed on Rule 20(5), the impugned order must nonetheless be
set aside on the sole ground that proper reasons have not been assigned.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:30394
8 WP-13721-2026
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the

respondent authority is directed to decide the petitioner's application afresh.
In doing so, the authority shall consider all relevant material on record,
examine the relevance of the pending suit, and explicitly detail why the
pendency of the suit would cause any prejudice to the rights of the petitioner.
16. Upon evaluating these aspects, whichever way the respondent
Corporation ultimately decides, it shall pass a reasoned order clearly
explaining its conclusions. Furthermore, the respondent shall provide an
adequate opportunity to the petitioner to point out any relevant aspects,
should the need arise. This exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
17. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed off.
18. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the contentions raised by the respective parties, since the matter is
remanded for fresh consideration.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE

pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA NAIR
Signing time: 29-10-2026
19:09:14