City planner cannot cancel building permission after construction begins, rules MP High Court; permit restored to developer

The petitioner, a real-estate developer, obtained planning approval, municipal development permissions, Consent to Establish from the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and a final building permission dated 22.06.2022 for its residential project, “Courtyard Heights,” situated at Khasra Nos. 74/2/2 and 75/2, Village Koh-e-Fiza, District Bhopal.

The M.P. State Wetlands Authority had earlier clarified that it had no statutory power to issue an independent NOC under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017.

Third parties challenged the project before the National Green Tribunal, alleging that it encroached upon the 50-metre buffer zone of the Upper Lake/Bhoj Wetland.

A Joint Inspection Committee initially measured the distance using Google Earth, acknowledged the possibility of errors, and recommended physical demarcation through ETS or DGPS; however, verified field demarcation was not conducted before executive action was taken.

The Collector, Bhopal, passed an order dated 16.08.2024, followed by the City Planner’s order dated 27.08.2024 revoking the building permission under Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 2012.

The petitioner challenged both orders on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, absence of reliable scientific material, and infringement of Article 300-A of the Constitution.

The respondents relied upon alleged DGPS measurements and asserted that construction violated the 50-metre restriction applicable to the Bhoj Wetland.

1. Whether the City Planner or municipal authorities had jurisdiction to revoke a building permission after construction had commenced, or whether such power lay exclusively with the State Government under Section 299-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956?

2. Whether the impugned revocation was invalid for violation of the mandatory requirement of notice and hearing under Section 299-A and Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 2012?

3. Whether the alleged encroachment upon the protected buffer zone was established through reliable, verified, and legally applicable measurements?

4. Whether the petitioner had obtained the permission through a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact so as to justify revocation under Rule 25?

The Court applied Sections 299 and 299-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956: Section 299 permits revocation by the Commissioner only before commencement of the work, whereas Section 299-A confers on the State Government the power to cancel or revise a building permission after construction has commenced, subject to a prior opportunity of hearing.

Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhoomi Vikas Niyam, 2012 permits suspension or revocation where permission was obtained through a false statement or material misrepresentation, conditions were violated, or the Act or Rules were not observed, but also incorporates a mandatory hearing requirement.

Rule 24 and the applicable provisions of the Rules prescribe restrictions concerning construction near water bodies, while the notification dated 16.03.2022 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 prescribed the relevant restrictions for the Bhoj Wetland.

The Court further applied Article 300-A of the Constitution, holding that deprivation of property must be authorised by law and accompanied by safeguards including notice, hearing, and a reasoned decision.

Reliance was placed on Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435, which recognised these safeguards as integral components of the constitutional right to property.

The Court held that construction had commenced after the building permission was granted; consequently, the limited pre-commencement power under Section 299 was no longer available, and the power to cancel or revise the permission lay with the State Government under Section 299-A, subject to hearing the petitioner.

The City Planner’s unilateral revocation under Rule 25 therefore amounted to an assumption of jurisdiction not conferred by the statute.

Independently, the cancellation was procedurally defective because it was made without adequate notice, meaningful hearing, or a reasoned decision based on verified material.

On the alleged buffer-zone violation, the Court found that the Committee had relied initially on Google Earth despite acknowledging its limitations and recommending ETS/DGPS-based field demarcation.

The recommended verified demarcation was not undertaken, and the Corporation had no authenticated baseline records of the relevant Mean High Flood Level.

The Court further noted that the respondents’ own measurements placed the project 54.60 metres from the Bhoj Talab and 46.80 metres from the Shirin River.

Since the notified 50-metre restriction applied to the Bhoj Wetland and the Shirin River was not shown to be a notified wetland or minor stream, the project was beyond the applicable 50-metre and 9-metre restrictions, and also beyond the 30-metre distance contemplated under the development rules.

The allegation of misrepresentation was likewise held to be unparticularised and unsupported, particularly in view of the Wetlands Authority’s prior clarification that it had no statutory role in issuing an NOC.

The building permission dated 22.06.2022 granted to the petitioner was restored.

No order as to costs was made.

The connected Contempt Petition No. 2625 of 2026 was also disposed of.

In view of the final restoration of the building permission, the cost of Rs.10,000 imposed while accepting the petitioner’s unconditional apology was waived, and the notices issued in the contempt proceedings were discharged.