Ramprakash Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-9146-2021
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. 9146 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC030109982021
RAMPRAKASH SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Krishna Kartikey Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Adovcate of 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 18.03.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.2 in Case
No.222/2020-21, 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.137/2/1, situated at Gram Rusalli,
Tehsil Shamshabad, 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-9146-2021
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 and various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The
petitioner contends that the aforesaid order was passed ex parte, 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 18.03.2021 passed by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, illegal and without
jurisdiction, as the direction for registration of an FIR has been issued by
mechanically invoking the provisions of Section 61-D of the Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, without
establishing that the petitioner has committed any violation attracting the
aforesaid provision. It is contended that the petitioner is the Bhumiswami of
land bearing Survey No.137/2/1, situated at Gram Rusalli, Tehsil
Shamshabad, District Vidisha, 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. Merely because
the petitioner owns the land in question, he cannot be subjected to criminal
proceedings in the absence of material establishing the essential ingredients
of the alleged statutory violation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

3 WP-9146-2021
Learned counsel further submits that the provisions contained in

Sections 61-A, 61-B, 61-C and 61-D of the aforesaid Adhiniyam, relating to
colonies and colonizers, have been invoked without examining whether the
petitioner falls within the statutory definition of a “colonizer”. Placing
reliance upon Section 61-A of the Adhiniyam of 1993 and the Madhya
Pradesh Gram Panchayat (Registration of Colonizer Terms and Conditions)
Rules, 1999, it is contended that the petitioner is not a registered colonizer
and has not undertaken any activity which could be characterised as the
development of a colony. It is further submitted that the provisions relating
to diversion of land under Sections 171 and 172 of the Madhya Pradesh Land
Revenue Code, 1959, have been omitted, and, therefore, the action initiated
against the petitioner on the basis of the alleged requirement of diversion is
unsustainable. Learned counsel also submits that the impugned order has
been passed without following due process of law, as 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 18.03.2021 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom
be quashed.
In support of the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner’s case may be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

4 WP-9146-2021
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,
decided on 07.05.2026 (Neutral Citation No.2026:MPHC-GWL:14936). 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.
He seeks dismissal of the petition, contending that the impugned action does
not warrant interference in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
impugned order directing registration of an FIR against the petitioner can be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

5 WP-9146-2021
sustained when the action has been initiated by invoking the provisions

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 (Neutral Citation
No.2026:MPHC-GWL:14936), wherein this Court dealt with 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.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

6 WP-9146-2021
In the present case, the petitioner has specifically disputed the very

basis of the proceedings by asserting that no colony has been developed over
the land in question 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
is afforded a reasonable opportunity to explain his position and place
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

7 WP-9146-2021
relevant material on record. The question of 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 18.03.2021, passed by
respondent No.2 in Case No.222/2020-21, 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 18.03.2021 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No.2 in Case
No.222/2020-21, 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.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 10/30/2026
12:49:51 PM

8 WP-9146-2021
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