Sikander vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
1 WP-5074-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA
rd
ON THE 3 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 5074 of 2025
SIKANDER AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arjun Pathak - Advocate for the petitioners.
Smt. Swati Ukhale - Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 (State)
and 2 (D TNCP).
Shri Shivam Bhargav - Advocate for respondent No.3/IDA.
Ms. Anadi Silawat - Advocate for respondent No.4/IMC.
ORDER
Heard on IA No.5318/2026 which is an application filed by the petitioners
for urgent hearing and urgent relief during vacations. For the reasons stated in the
aforesaid application, the said application is allowed.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue involved in
the present matter is covered by decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court
in S.R.J. Betterbuild v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others passed in Writ Petition
No.22077/2022. Though learned counsel for respondents have tried to distinguish
the aforesaid decision, since a short point is involved,the matter is heard finally
with the consent of the parties.
3.The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article
226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
2 WP-5074-2025
"A. That Petitioners prays for a writ of mandamus or
Certiorari any other appropriate writ, order or direction to
quash the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-
12) & consequently the development permission dated
09.06.2023 may kindly be restored and the respondent no. 4
may also be directed to grant development permission on the
basis of the application dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure P-8)
without insisting of any NOC from the respondent no. 3.

B. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
in the interest of justice.

C.This petition be allowed with costs."

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners claim to be land owners of
said land bearing survey nos. 1393/1, 1393/2/1, 1393/2/2/1, and 1393/2/2/2, total
admeasuring 3.885 hectares situated in Village Khajrana, Tehsil Juni Indore,
District Indore. The petitioners stated in the petition that the respondent no. 2,
Joint Director, Town & Country Planning Department, Indore granted
development permission under section 30(1)(kha) of the MP Nagar Tatha Gram
Nivesh Adhiniyam 1973 on 09.06.2023 to the petitioners on the said piece of
land. The petitioners further stated that the petitioners have not suppressed any
material fact while obtaining the development permission as the respondent no.2
was fully aware of the fact that the petitioners are the lawful owners of the said
land and the Indore Development Authority has already granted NOC vide letter
no. 5685 dated 06.07.2011 for development of said land. Thus, after satisfying the
legal requirement under the law, the respondent no. 2 has granted the development
permission on 09.06.2023. It was also stated in the petition that after grant of
development permission, the petitioners have approached the respondent no.4 for
grant of colony cell permission and the said application is still pending for passing
final orders.
5 . However, the petitioners were served with notice no.2315
dated 10.06.2024 and notice no.2482 dated 20.06.2024 wherein it was stated that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
3 WP-5074-2025
the said land has been included in Town Planning Scheme no.77 (hereinafter,

scheme no.77) of Indore Development Authority and that the petitioners have
suppressed material fact in their application for development permission and have
violated condition no.35 of the development permission. Against this notice,
petitioners submitted reply dated 21.06.2024 stating that said land is not included
in any scheme and that the aforesaid scheme has not been implemented by
Indore Development Authority and that there is no misrepresentation by
the petitioners.
6. After filing of the aforesaid reply, the respondent no.2 proceeded to pass
the order dated 27.06.2024 whereby the layout approval and development
permission granted to the petitioners has been revoked by the respondent no.2
exercising powers under Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012 on the
ground of misrepresentation of material fact that said land included in Indore
Development Authority's scheme no.77.
7 . Impugning the order dated 27.06.2024 and non-grant of colony
c e l l permission by the respondent no.4, the petitioners have filed the
present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this Court,
vide order dated 13.02.2025, issued notices to the respondents and stayed the
operation of the impugned order dated 27.06.2024.
8. The respondents filed reply to the petition. The respondent no.2 stated
that the petitioners have alternate remedy of appeal before appellate authority
constituted under section 31 of the 1973 Act. Further, the respondent stated that
scheme no. 77 has not been quashed and is still in existence and that the
petitioners suppressed the factum of inclusion of said land in scheme no.77 and
the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 is validly passed by respondent no.2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
4 WP-5074-2025
9 . The respondent no.3 filed their reply to the petition by stating

that scheme no.77 continues to exist and said land vests in Indore Development
Authority and that by virtue of the NOC, statutory vesting cannot be diluted. The
respondent further stated that since formal denotification has not taken place, the
aforesaid scheme no.77 continues to remain in operation.
10. The respondent no.4 also filed reply to the petition and stated that since
petitioners' development permission has been revoked, colony development
permission cannot be issued to the petitioners.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
12. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the impugned order
is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction in as much as the respondent no.2 has
no authority to cancel development permission issued in favor of petitioners in
exercise of powers under Rule 25 of the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012. Learned
counsel has submitted that Rule 25 of the 2012 rules requires reason to believe on
part of the authority that development permission has been obtained on the basis
of a false statement or any misrepresentation of any material fact or that
the conditions imposed in the permission have been violated or that the provisions
of the Act or rules made thereunder have not been observed. Learned counsel has
submitted that in the present case, no false statement or misrepresentation has
been made by the petitioners in as much as the development permission granted
by respondent no.2 was granted after due verification and scrutiny of all
documents. Indore Development Authority itself issued NOC in 2011 stating that
said land is not part of any scheme and respondent no.2, being fully aware of
aforesaid factual position, rule 25 of the 2012 rules is not attracted in the present
case. Learned counsel has further submitted that though in the impugned order it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
5 WP-5074-2025
is mentioned that petitioners have violated condition no.35 of the development

permission, the development permission contains only 32 conditions and hence,
the impugned order is passed illegally and without any basis in law. Learned
counsel has submitted that scheme no.77 has been quashed by this Court in M.P.
No.769/1987 vide order dated 26.09.1996 and even Indore Development
Authority's on its own resolution dated 16.07.2001 admits that the scheme is not
in existence. Further, Indore Development Authority has given letter dated
06.07.2011 stating that said land is not included in any scheme. Further,
learned counsel has submitted that by virtue of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram
Nivesh (Sanshodhan) Adhinyam, 2019, scheme no. 77 has statutorily lapsed
in view of section 50(1)(b) of the Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that
no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing of
impugned order and there is violation of principles of natural justice. Lastly,
learned counsel places reliance on the judgments passed by this Court in S.R.J.
Betterbuild (supra) and M/s Dwarka & Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others Writ Petition No.23511/2021.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 has submitted
that the petitioners have alternative remedy of appeal/revision under sections 31
and 32 of the 1973 Act and in view of notification dated 10.11.2025, the State
Government has notified amendment to rule 23-1 whereby the divisional
commissioner has been conferred with powers of appellate authority under the
1973 Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that the said land continues to be
part of the earlier scheme no.77 since no formal de-notification order has been
issued by the State Government under section 52 of the 1973 Act. Decision
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
6 WP-5074-2025
passed by this Court in M.P. No.769/1987 did not quash the scheme but merely

permitted reconsideration of objections under section 50(3) of the 1973 Act.
Further, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners did not disclose factum
of inclusion of said land in scheme no.77 and this constitutes misrepresentation
and the respondent no.2 was well within their powers in passing impugned order
and revoking the petitioners' development permission and prays for dismissal of
the present petition.
1 4 . Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has supported the
contentions raised by counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 and has contended that
in absence of NOC from respondent no.2, no colony development permission can
be granted to the petitioners and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
Alternatively, learned counsel has contended that if the development permission
in favor of the petitioners is restored, then the municipal corporation shall decide
petitioners application for grant of colony development permission expeditiously
and in accordance with law.
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that two
issues arise for consideration of this Court:

a. Whether the present petition is maintainable
i n view of petitioners have alternative remedy
under sections 31 and 32 of the 1973 Act?

b. Whether the respondent authorities could
revoke petitioners' development permission under
Rule 25 of the 2012 rules in the facts of the
present case?

16. Adverting to issue no. (a), this Court finds that the issue of alternative
remedy is considered in a plethora of cases and it is settled position in law that
this Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India if there is an alternative efficacious remedy available.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
7 WP-5074-2025
However, this rule of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to this Court's

jurisdiction under Article 226 and the Court can exercise its jurisdiction if
fundamental rights of the petitioners are affected or there is failure of principles of
natural justice (Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Union of India & Others
(2008) 5 SCC 632; followed in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Others (2021) 6 SCC 771).
17. This Court finds that the issue of alternative remedy while challenging
an order passed under Rule 25 of the 2012 rules has been elaborately discussed
and applied in the case of M/s Dwarka (supra) and the Court held as under:
"30. During the course of hearing, we pointedly invited the
attention of the learned counsel for Respondents to point out any
enabling provision in Adhiniyam, 1973 or Rules made there under
t o issue notification. However, the learned counsel
f o r Respondents could not point out any express enabling
statutory provision either in theAdhiniyam or in the Rules
conferring upon the Govt. any enabling power to issue any
notification for appointing an appellate authority for the purposes
of section 31. In this view of the matter the notification dated
29.01.2021 (Annexure P/31) appears to have been issued without
a statutory sanction and as such is unsustainable in law.

33. We are not dealing with the constitutional validity of Rule 25-
A in this petition because in Para 20 to 26 above, we have already
held that the entire exercise of constituting the committee by
t h e Collector and all consequential actions to
be unsustainable. We have already decided in Para 27 to 29 above
that the notification dated 29.01.2001 (Annexure P/31) is not
sustainable for want of sanction of an enabling
statutory provision. In view of these findings, since the remedy of
appeal to be not a bar in the facts of this case. For the aforesaid
reasons, therefore, in absence of a validly prescribed
appellate authority the petitioners do not have any remedy under
Rule 25-A against revocation of building permission (Annexure
P/29)."
18. A perusal of the aforesaid decision makes it crystal clear that there is no
enabling provision in the 1973 Act by which the respondents can appoint any
appellate authority. Though learned counsel for respondents has submitted that
appellate authority has been prescribed vide notification dated 10.11.2025 and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
8 WP-5074-2025
petitioners have alternative remedy to approach the said authority, this Court finds

that the said authority could not have been appointed in absence of any enabling
provision under the scheme of the 1973 Act and the rules framed thereunder and
hence, in absence of a validly prescribed appellate authority, the petitioners
cannot be relegated to alternative remedy. Furthermore, the aforesaid
notification does not help the respondents as the said notification has been
issued contrary to the law laid down by this Court. This Court further finds
t h a t the authority appointed by the State Government vide notification
dated 10.11.2025 is the Divisional Commissioner. In the present case, the
o r d e r impugned has been passed by the respondent no. 2 but the
Divisional Commissioner has vested interest since the Divisional Commissioner
is presently the Chairman of Indore Development Authority and hence, there is no
alternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioners. Hence, the present
petition is maintainable. Issue (a) is decided accordingly.
19. In deciding issue no. (b), it is useful to refer to Rule 25 of the
2 0 1 2 rules which deals with the power to revoke or cancel permission
granted under the 1973 Act. Rule 25 reads as under:

"25. Revocation of permission.
The Authority may suspend or revoke any permission
granted by it under the provisions of these rules if it has
reasons to believe that such permission has been obtained on
the basis of a false statement or any misrepresentation of
a n y material fact or that the conditions imposed in
the permission have been violated or that the provisions of
the Act or rules made thereunder have not been observed:

Provided that no such order shall be passed unless the
person who obtained such permission has been given an
opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that such order of revocation or suspension
May be annulled if the applicant cures the violation of the
Act or the rules or any conditions imposed in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
9 WP-5074-2025
permission. However where the permission has been
obtained on the basis of a false statement or any
misrepresentation of any material fact no such order of
revocation shall be annulled."
2 0 . This Court finds that the aforesaid rule 25 of 2012 rules has

been authoritatively decided by this Court in SRJ Betterbuild (supra) wherein this
Court held as follows:

"30. For revocation of permission there has to be reason to
believe that it has been obtained on the basis of a false
statement, or any misrepresentation of any material fact or
t h a t conditions imposed in the permission have
been violated or that the provisions of the Act or rules made
thereunder have not been observed. Though it is contented
by the IDA that permission was obtained by the petitioner
on the basis of false statements and by misrepresentation of
material facts but as discussed above, it is evident that
n o false statement was made by the petitioner and no
material fact was misrepresented by it. The disputed lands
have not been acquired by the IDA for any of its scheme and
have not vested in any of the respondents. They continued
to be of the ownership of the previous landowner from
w h o m they have been legally purchased by the
petitioner. Development permission was granted to
the previous landowners and subsequently to the petitioner
on the statement of the IDA itself that they are not included
in any scheme. The previous landowner and the petitioner
applied for development permission stating all the
n e c e s s a r y facts and from the record it has not
b e e n demonstrated by any of the respondents that
any material fact was concealed by the petitioner or any
false statement was made by him. On the contrary, the
statements made by the petitioner and the previous
landowner at the time of obtaining permission were factually
correct. Section hence had no application to the facts of the
case and the conditions precedent for invocation of the
s a m e were wholly absent in view of which the
impugned order is wholly illegal and unjustified."
21. In the present case, the entire reasoning adopted by the respondents for
revoking the petitioners' development permission under Rule 25 of the 2012 rules
is that the petitioners did not disclose the factum of inclusion of the said land in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
10 WP-5074-2025
earlier scheme no.77 of the Indore Development Authority. However, in the

present case, it is undisputed fact that the Indore Development Authority has
itself given NOC vide letter dated 06.07.2011. In view of the above, it is not
necessary for the petitioners to state that the said land was part of scheme no.77 of
IDA: Hence, it cannot be said that there is any violation by the petitioners by
not disclosing factum of inclusion of said land in erstwhile scheme no.77. The
petitioners continue to remain valid owners of the said land and no serious
challenge has been laid to the ownership or title of the petitioners on the said land.
Hence, when the basis for invoking Rule 25, that is, reason to believe that there is
suppression of material fact, is not made out, Rule 25 of the 2012 rules cannot be
given effect to and development permission granted in favor of petitioners cannot
be revoked at the whims of the respondent authorities.
22. This Court further finds that in the notice dated 20.06.2024 issued to the
petitioners, the respondent no. 2 has stated that the petitioners have violated
condition no. 35 of the development permission. However, in the entire
development permission, only 32 conditions have been mentioned and the
impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner without even semblance
of application of mind. This Court, hence, finds it useful to refer to the
observations made by this Court in SRJ Betterbuild (supra) wherein this Court
held in no uncertain terms that application of mind has to be there by the authority
in revoking development permission and this Court ought to exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when valuable rights of
the petitioner are affects.
"31. Earlier on a communication made by the
IDA by letter dated 18.08.2022 a notice was
issued to the petitioner by the TNCP stating that
since survey number 368 and 369 were having a
cement pole factory survey number 361, 365 and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
11 WP-5074-2025
366 were released from acquisition for its
ancillary purpose hence permission ought not to
have been granted in respect of survey no. 368
and 369 hence petitioner should show cause why
the permission should not be cancelled. The
petitioner duly filed his detailed reply to the
show cause notice. Thereafter the impugned
order 02.09.2022 was passed which reiterated the
statements as contained in the letter dated
18.08.2022 of the IDA and after reproducing the
same, by merely observing that the reply of
t h e petitioner has not been found to be
satisfactory, the permission has been cancelled.
The impugned order itself states that the same is
being passed on the basis of communication
dated 18.08.2022 of the IDA. It is evident that
there has not been any application of mind by the
Joint Director, TNCP Department while passing
the impugned order. It has merely acted on the
dictates of the IDA. It received letter from the
IDA, issued show cause notice to the petitioner
and passed the impugned order reproducing the
statement made by the IDA merely observing that
reply of the petitioner is not satisfactory. The said
order cannot be said to be a judicial order in any
manner. Since thereunder development
permission having been granted to the petitioner
was being cancelled, it was imperative for the
Joint Director to have applied his independent
mind to the proceedings and to have passed
a reasoned order which has not been done by
him. The same hence cannot be sustained .

3 2 . From the facts as have been found
aforesaid, it is evident that the impugned order is
wholly illegal and has deprived the petitioner of
its right to go ahead with the construction of
a nursing home on the basis of the
building permission granted to it earlier. It has
resulted in greatly prejudicing its rights in a
most injudicious manner. The entire proceedings
have been taken by the respondents with an
apparent intention of merely passing the
impugned order and by showing a formality of
having carried out the proceedings in accordance
with law. Such an order cannot be permitted to
stand. The same being an apparent illegality
affecting the valuable rights of the petitioner. I do
not find it to be a fit case for relegating the
petitioner to avail the alternate remedy. In any
case, the pleadings in the matter have been

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
12 WP-5074-2025
completed in extenso and the counsel for the
parties have also advanced their arguments on
each and every aspect of the matter and there are
no factual disputes involved in the matter, hence,
it is a fit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
23. A perusal of the entire record reveals that the respondents have not been

able to show that there is any reason to believe that development permission has
been obtained on the basis of false statement or any misrepresentation of any
material fact or the conditions imposed in permission have been violated or that
provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder have been violated. No acquisition
of said land has been done by the Indore Development Authority and Indore
Development Authority itself has given letter that said land is not included in
any scheme. It is further relevant to note that a town inclusion and development of
private property and the contents of the planning scheme requires a meticulous
prescribed procedure for said scheme are within public domain. Hence, it was
incumbent upon respondent no,2 to verify and scrutinize all aspects before
granting development permission. Once development permission is granted and
validly obtained, the onus is on the respondent authority to justify that there is
misrepresentation of material fact. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding
that rule 25 does not apply to the facts of the present case and there is no occasion
for the respondents to revoke the development permission issued in favor of
the petitioners.
2 4 . Though this Court had heard learned counsel for the parties on
the effect of the 2019 Amendment to section 50(1)(b) of the 1973 Act, this Court
does not deem it necessary to delve into issue of automatic termination of stalled
projects in view of the clear position that Rule 25 has no application to the facts of
the present case. However, it would be apposite to mention that respondent no. 3's
internal record (Resolution No.83 dated 19.06.2024) confirms that the expenditure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
13 WP-5074-2025
on scheme no. 77 was merely 67.16 Lakhs, which does not cross the 10%

threshold under section 50(1)(b). Since no land acquisition award was ever
passed, no compensation was paid, and no possession of the said land was
taken, the land remains the unencumbered private property of the petitioners.
2 5 . It is also important to note that the respondent-Indore
Development Authority has, from time to time, issued No Objection
Certificates (NOCs) for lands covered under Scheme No. 77 to various
landowners. Based on such NOCs, respondent no. 2 approved a layout for land
bearing survey no.788/4 and other lands measuring 1,471 hectares, as shown
i n Annexure P/5. In view of this material, the respondents' decision to
allow development on some lands under the same scheme while withdrawing
or cancelling the permission granted to the petitioner for similarly placed land,
without any valid reason, appears at first glance to be inconsistent and arbitrary.
Such unequal treatment, without any reasonable basis or clear distinction, does
not meet the standard of fairness expected from a public authority and therefore
cannot be upheld in law.
26. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned
order no.2570 dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondent no.2
is hereby quashed and set aside. The development permission dated 09.06.2023
granted in favor of the petitioners is restored and the respondents are directed to
allow the petitioners to continue with their development work.
27. In view of the aforesaid decision and in view of the undertaking given
by the learned counsel for respondent no.4, this Court directs respondent no.4 to
decide the petitioners' application for colony development permission dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:16870
14 WP-5074-2025
12.07.2023 in accordance with law within a period of 08 weeks from receipt of

certified copy of this order.
28. With the aforesaid, the petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off
(RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA )
V. JUDGE
Vindesh/(alok)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ALOK KUMAR
Signing time: 6/27/2026
12:19:37 PM