Subsequent special legislation prevails over prior statutes in regulating unauthorized religious structures on public land.

The Petitioner, representing a Dargah, challenged an order dated 16/06/2026 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Indore, which rejected the Petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The underlying proceedings (Case No. 0009/B-121/2026-27) concerned unauthorized construction of 14 shops and rooms on land originally vested in the Indore Municipal Corporation/Development Authority.

The Petitioner contended the authority lacked jurisdiction under the M.P. Sarvajanik Sthan Adhiniyam, 2001, and lacked a cause of action.

Respondents argued the Petitioner failed to produce title documents or authorization to file the suit and was merely delaying an inquiry previously ordered by the High Court in WP No. 17126/2024.

1. Whether the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was maintainable and should have been allowed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction or cause of action.

2. Whether the Petitioner had the legal standing (locus standi) to file the writ petition without a formal letter of authorization.

3. Whether the M.P. Sarvajanik Sthan (Dharmik Bhawan Evam Gatividhiyon Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2001, prevails over the Waqf Act, 1995, regarding public religious places.

Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, which mandates the rejection of a plaint if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by law.

Sections 2(d), 3, and 6 of The M.P. Sarvajanik Sthan (Dharmik Bhawan Evam Gatividhiyon Ka Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2001, which empowers the Collector to remove unauthorized religious structures on public land.

Principle from Swakshtagrahi Sangh v. Union of India (WA No. 91/2022), establishing that an association cannot file a writ for its members' rights without a clear resolution authorizing the litigation and binding the members to the decision.

The Court found that the Petitioner failed to establish any right, title, or interest in the property or produce permission for the construction of shops.

It determined that since the Dargah is a "religious place" on public land, it falls squarely under the 2001 Adhiniyam, granting the Collector jurisdiction to act.

The Court noted that the Order 7 Rule 11 application was a dilatory tactic to obstruct the time-bound inquiry ordered in earlier litigation.

The Petitioner provided no authorization letter or resolution to represent the committee, making the petition non-maintainable under the Swakshtagrahi Sangh precedent.

The Court held that new grounds raised for the first time in the writ petition, without supporting documentation, could not invalidate the SDO's order.

The Court further held the petition was not maintainable due to the Petitioner's lack of authorization and dismissed it as meritless and a waste of judicial time, directing a token cost of Rs. 15,000/- to the Indore High Court Bar Association.