M/S Lashya Developers Through Parnter And Authorized Person Aditya Dagaria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Decided on
- 17-03-2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
1
W.P. No. 7585/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 7585 of 2026
M/S LASHYA DEVELOPERS THROUGH PARNTER AND
AUTHORIZED PERSON ADITYA DAGARIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary –GA for the respondents/State.
Reserved on : 11/03/2026
Post on : 17/03/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. By way of the present writ petition preferred under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this
Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
2
W.P. No. 7585/2026
notesheet/order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by
Respondent No. 3. By the said impugned order, the application
preferred by the petitioner for the sanction of a layout map has been
summarily rejected.
Facts of the Case
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm duly engaged in the business
of developing townships and colonies within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court. The firm is represented by its partner and
authorized signatory, Mr. Aditya Dagaria. The petitioner firm is the
absolute owner of lands situated at Gram Harnya Khedi, Tehsil
Mhow, District Indore, admeasuring a total of 5.668 hectares
(comprising Survey Nos. 37/2/2, 37/2/1, 37/1, 26/1, 25/1, 22/5,
22/2, 20, 2/2, 2/1/2, 19/1/2, and 19/1/1/3), upon which it proposes
to develop a colony named "HD Royal Estate".
3. The record reveals that the petitioner initially applied for a
layout map sanction before Respondent No. 3 vide Application No.
INDOLP15052550353. This initial application was rejected by
Respondent No. 2, placing sole reliance upon a Revenue Inspector’s
report dated 08.07.2025. The said report opined that the approach
road to the proposed colony passes through non-transferable
Government land (Survey Nos. 1 and 70), operating as a common
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
3
W.P. No. 7585/2026
road, and that the approval of private individuals owning adjacent
survey numbers would be indispensable. It is the pleaded case of
the petitioner that this rejection was ordered unilaterally, without
affording any opportunity of hearing.
4. Subsequent to the said rejection, the petitioner preferred a
fresh application for a layout map sanction before Respondent No.
3, registered as Application No. INDOLP22112503975. The matter
was again forwarded to the Revenue Inspector for an inspection
report. On 24.11.2025, the Revenue Inspector submitted a report
reiterating that the approach road traverses Government Survey
Nos. 1 and 70 (classified as non-transferable), and additionally
noted that approval from the owners of Survey Nos. 22/3 and 22/4
would be required to forge an approach road for the proposed
colony situated on Survey Nos. 25/1 and 26/1.
5. Crucially, as the matter progressed, the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (SDM) examined the record and expressly
noted in the official proceedings that the requisite approval from
private landowners is not required as the approach to the said
land/colony is through public road. With this specific noting, the
SDM forwarded the application to Respondent No. 3 for final
approval. However, Respondent No. 3, without adverting to the
fresh considerations or the SDM's specific recommendation,
proceeded to reject the second application vide the impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
4
W.P. No. 7585/2026
notesheet dated 24.11.2025, solely on the premise that the
petitioner's previous application had been rejected and no new facts
had been brought on record.
Contentions of the Petitioner
6 . Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the
impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is arbitrary, mechanical, and
suffers from a gross non-application of mind. It is submitted that
Respondent No. 3 completely turned a blind eye to the specific
findings recorded by the learned SDM, who had categorically
clarified that permission from private landowners is not required. It
is contended that the SDM's noting constituted a material change in
circumstances and brought new facts to light, which Respondent
No. 3 was legally bound to evaluate. Furthermore, the petitioner
asserts that the impugned administrative action is vitiated by the
failure of Respondent No. 3 to afford any opportunity of hearing,
thereby running foul of the fundamental principles of natural
justice.
Contentions of the Respondents
7 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has strongly opposed the writ petition. It is submitted
that the action taken by Respondent No. 3 suffers from no
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
5
W.P. No. 7585/2026
jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity. The respondents
contend that since an earlier application on the identical subject
matter and survey numbers had already faced rejection, Respondent
No. 3 was entirely justified in dismissing the subsequent application
on the ground that it presented no newly actionable facts.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length and
carefully perused the materials available on record.
Analysis and Conclusion
9. The pivotal issue that falls for the consideration of this Court
is whether Respondent No. 3 was justified in rejecting the
petitioner’s second application (INDOLP22112503975) in a
summary manner, particularly in the face of a contrary noting made
by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
10. A bare perusal of the record unequivocally demonstrates that
while the Revenue Inspector’s report dated 24.11.2025 flagged the
necessity of obtaining approvals from private landowners, the
learned SDM consciously applied his mind to the said report and
the ground realities. The SDM arrived at a categorical conclusion,
duly recorded in the proceedings, that such approval from private
landowners is not required. By forwarding the matter to Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
6
W.P. No. 7585/2026
No. 3 with this noting, the SDM effectively superseded the obstacle
that formed the basis of the initial rejection.
11. It is a well-settled proposition of law that administrative or
quasi-judicial authorities are duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably,
and with due application of mind. When a subordinate authority or
a field officer (in this case, the SDM) submits a report or makes a
noting that alters the factual complexion of a case, the sanctioning
authority cannot brush it aside with a stroke of a pen. A perusal of
the impugned notesheet dated 24.11.2025 reveals that Respondent
No. 3 failed entirely to discuss, analyze, or even acknowledge the
learned SDM's recommendation.
12. The reasoning adopted by Respondent No. 3 that "the
application has already been rejected previously and no new facts
have been brought on record" is factually incorrect and legally
unsustainable. The observation of the SDM itself constituted a "new
fact" and a fresh ground for consideration. If Respondent No. 3
wished to differ from the conclusion drawn by the learned SDM, it
was incumbent upon the authority to record cogent and explicit
reasons for such disagreement. The issuance of a cryptic, one-line
rejection order demonstrates a mechanical exercise of power and
renders the order a non-speaking one.
13. Furthermore, the rejection of civil rights, such as the right to
develop one's property, entails civil consequences. Therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
7
W.P. No. 7585/2026
before arriving at a decision to reject the application, respondent
No. 3 was obligated to observe the principles of natural justice
( audi alteram partem ) by affording the petitioner an opportunity of
hearing, which admittedly was not done in the present case.
14. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and legal analysis, the
impugned action of Respondent No. 3 cannot withstand the scrutiny
of law.
15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order/notesheet dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by
Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside.
16. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 3 with a
direction to restore Application No. INDOLP22112503975 to its
original number and reconsider the same afresh. While undertaking
this exercise, respondent No. 3 shall strictly take into consideration
the recommendations and observations made by the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to
afford a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the
petitioner and, thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in
accordance with the law.
17. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed by respondent No. 3
within a strict time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
8
W.P. No. 7585/2026
18. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 3/17/2026
5:17:40 PM