Kaid Johar Talwala vs Collector And Others

Pranay Verma, J

By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Collector, District Neemuch, whereby invoking the provisions of Section 339-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, he has directed the Chief Municipal Officer, Manasa to take appropriate penal action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has brought to the notice of this Court judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court at Gwalior in W.P. No.29427/2022 (Shivcharan Vs. State of M.P. and Others) and other connected petitions to contend that even if it was held that the petitioner was involved in unauthorized colonization, he was required to be issued a notice of 15 days for removal of development/construction and thereafter to send intimation to the concerned Sub Registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sale in the said colony and Sub Divisional Officer could not have been directly authorized to register criminal case against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Collector. He however could not dispute the proposition that the procedure as has been interpreted by this Court in the case of Shivcharan (Supra) has not been complied with.

In Shivcharan (Supra) it has been categorically held that if the authority is of the opinion that the petitioner is involved in unauthorized colonization, he is required to be issued a notice of 15 days for removal of development/construction and thereafter to send intimation to the concerned Sub Registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sale in the said colony and the Sub Divisional Officer could not have been straightway authorized to register a criminal case against the petitioner. While holding as aforesaid, this Court has relied upon the provisions of Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2021 which are as under:

"(3) In case, no satisfactory reply is received within the prescribed time period, competent authority may issue final notice, giving time 15 days' time for removal of development/construction and also send intimation to the concerned sub-registrar to stop registration of sale/agreement to sell in the said colony. General public shall also be warned by a public notice through publication in local newspaper, to not get involved in any sale/purchase in the said colony. Clear details of unauthorized colony and is location shall be included in the public notice.

(4) In case, the development/construction is not removed in the unauthorised colony within the period specified in sub-rule (3) hereinabove, the competent authority shall take action for removal of the development/construction and also file complaint against the developer and landowner in the concerned police station for taking necessary penal action under the relevant provisions of the Act."

In the present case also, directly without adverting to the aforesaid procedure, criminal proceedings have been directed to be initiated against the petitioner which in view of the aforesaid dictum cannot be upheld. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Collector is hereby quashed. The Collector is directed to reconsider the objections as have been taken by the petitioner in his reply and so also the grounds as have been raised in this petition and to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law and in view of the observations as made hereinabove.

The petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.