Manish Krishnani vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 06-04-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11217 1 WP-33224-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE th ON THE 6 OF APRIL, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 33224 of 2024 MANISH KRISHNANI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Nitin Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Kumar Parashar - GA for the respondents/State. Shri Dharmendra Dwivedi - Advocate for the respondent No.3. ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order dated 1.10.2024; whereby, while invoking the provisions of Section 339(C) of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short ''Act of 1961''), the Collector, Guna has held the petitioner to be indulged in illegal colonization and its development without due and requisite permission and the Chief Municipal Officer, Nagarpalika, Guna has been directed to get an F.I.R./ criminal case registered against the present petitioner, under the provisions of the Act of 1961 and intimate the same accordingly. 2. Short facts of the case are that land situated at Village Kushmoda, District Guna, bearing Survey No. 305/1/3 admeasuring 0.627 hectares belongs to the petitioner. The said land was purchased by the petitioner through a registered sale deed. However, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was engaged in the development of Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/7/2026 4:26:58 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11217 2 WP-33224-2024 an unauthorized colony without obtaining or submitting the statutory permissions required for colony development. The notice further stated that, based on the inspection report, it appeared that the petitioner had violated the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Colony Development) Rules, 2021, and why an FIR should not be registered against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner submitted a comprehensive reply to the said notice, clarifying that no plot was ever proposed to be sold nor has any plot been sold as part of any colony development. It was categorically stated that the land in question is already diverted, and the plots earlier sold were only due to personal necessity, with no intention whatsoever to develop or establish a colony. Despite this, the respondents proceeded with the matter, and even though the petitioner filed detailed submissions and objections to the inspection report and subsequent proceedings, the same were not duly considered. Consequently, respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order holding the petitioner guilty of illegal colonization under the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, and has further directed the registration of an FIR against the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned proceedings are wholly contrary to the settled principles of law and are, therefore, arbitrary and mala fide. It is urged that the order has been passed without proper application of mind, despite the fact that the petitioner does Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/7/2026 4:26:58 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11217 3 WP-33224-2024 not fall within the definition or purview of a “Colonizer”. Nevertheless, the authorities have erroneously invoked the Colonizer Rules against the petitioner. It is further argued that the impugned order suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction, as the Collector has no authority under the Municipalities Act to initiate prosecution. The power to do so vests exclusively with the Chief Municipal Officer, and thus the respondents have usurped jurisdiction not vested in them. The land in question is already diverted, and there is no material to indicate any act of colonization; yet the petitioner has been treated as guilty of illegal colonization. The order directing registration of an FIR, passed for reasons best known to the respondents, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed. 5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the impugned order, an FIR has indeed been registered against the petitioner; however, the foundational fact that the petitioner does not fall within the purview of a colonizer has been completely ignored. Consequently, the entire proceedings, including the registration of the FIR, are void ab initio and cannot stand in the eyes of law. 6. Learned counsel further places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in a batch of petitions, including W.P. No. 29427 of 2022, decided on 20.12.2024, wherein it has been categorically held that any prosecution for offences under the Municipalities Act or under any rule or bye-laws framed thereunder must be initiated only by filing a private complaint before the competent Magistrate, and that too by the Municipal Council, the Chief Municipal Officer, or any other officer duly authorized by the Council. The said decision continues to hold the field and squarely Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/7/2026 4:26:58 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11217 4 WP-33224-2024 applies to the present case. In light of the above settled legal position, the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to law. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioner, without obtaining the due and requisite permissions, was carving out small plots from the said land and selling them. It is further submitted that, upon inspection, it was found that a colony-like structure along with temporary roads was being developed, thereby creating infrastructure in violation of the Government rules. In these circumstances, no illegality can be attributed to respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 1.10.2024 has been passed in clear disregard of the settled legal principles governing initiation of prosecution under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 and the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities (Colony Development) Rules, 2021. This Court further finds that the Collector does not possess the statutory competence to direct prosecution or registration of an FIR under the Act of 1961. As held by this Court in W.P. No. 29427/2022 and connected matters, decided on 20.12.2024, any prosecution under the Act of 1961 or the Rules framed thereunder can only be initiated by way of a private complaint before the competent Judicial Magistrate and that too by the Municipal Council, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/7/2026 4:26:58 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:11217 5 WP-33224-2024 Chief Municipal Officer, or any officer duly authorized by the Council. The said legal position continues to hold the field and squarely governs the controversy in the present case. The impugned order, having been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction, is vitiated in law. 9. The direction issued to the Chief Municipal Officer for registration of an FIR on the basis of such an order is equally unsustainable. Consequently, the subsequent registration of FIR, being based solely on the said order, also cannot be sustained. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 1.10.2024 is arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the settled legal position, and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 1.10.2024 is hereby quashed and all consequential proceedings, including the FIR registered pursuant thereto, stand set aside. 11. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, if so advised, strictly in conformity with the statutory provisions and only after adhering to due process. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 4/7/2026 4:26:58 PM</div>