Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramprakash Sahu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 9144 of 2021
RAMPRAKASH SAHU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati, learned GA for the respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 27/06/2025
Delivered on : 04/ 07/2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs :
"(i) That order dated 19.03.21 (Annexure P/1) and all proceedings arising out of it may kindly be set aside.
(ii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."
2. It is submitted by Counsel for petitioner that he is the 2 Bhumiswami of the land bearing survey No.109/2/3/2 situated in village Malsipur, Tahsil Sironj, District Vidisha. The SDO by order dated 19.03.2021 has directed for lodging of FIR against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is involved in illegal colonization in violation of the provisions of Section 61 (A), 61 (B) & 61 (C) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity, "1993 Adhiniyam").
3. It is submitted that the said order of respondent No.2 has been passed without conducting any enquiry and is based on the report of revenue authorities, while no notice was received and the proceedings were adjudged ex-parte in the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner is holding the Bhoomiswami rights over the land in question and he has all the right to sell the land to anyone lawfully, but still the petitioner is being harassed, whereas he has not carried out any development work. It is further submitted that since the petitioner is not the registered colonizer, therefore, provisions of Section 61 (D) of 1993 Adhiniyam will not apply.
4. Per contra, the counsel for State submits that the provision of Section 61 (D) of 1993 Adhiniyam is pari materia with Rule 12 (v) 3 of Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules 1998 (for brevity, "1998 Rules"). This Court by a detailed order dated 18/8/2021 passed in Writ Petition No.7126/2021 in the case of Ashish Agarwal vs. State of M.P. & Ors. has held that any interpretation of law which gives undue advantage to a wrongdoer should be avoided and while interpreting the word "colonizer" as mentioned in Rule 12 (v) of 1998 Rules, this Court has held that the word "colonizer" cannot be restricted to the registered colonizer and any colonizer who is intending to develop a colony whether registered or not would be covered under rule 12 (v) of 1998 Rules.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The solitary question which is involved in the present case is that "as to whether the word "colonizer" used in Section 61 (D) of 1993 Adhiniyam would include registered colonizer only or would also include all the colonizers?"
7. The word "colonizer" has been defined under Section 61-A
(c) of 1993 Adhiniyam, which reads as under :-
"61-A(c) "colonizer" means any person, society, institution or 4 entity, excluding those that may be so notified by the State Government, who intends to take up the work of developing a colony in accordance with the provisions of this Act and rules made thereunder for the purpose of transfer by sale or otherwise all or some of the plots or the building of part thereof and is registered as a colonizer by the Competent Authority under this Act."
8. This Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) has held as under :
"40. Thus, if the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules 1998 is considered in the light of provisions of Section 339-A(a) of Municipalities Act, it is clear that any Colonizer who intends to undertake the establishment of a Colony or Colonies for the purpose of dividing the land into plots, with or without developing the area, transfers or agrees to transfer gradually or at a time, to persons desirous of settling down on those plots by constructing residential or non-residential or composite accommodation, will have to obtain registration under Rules, 1998. If it is held that Rule 12 of Rules 1998 would be applicable to only Registered Colonizers who were working after obtaining due permission and not to all other Colonizers who have acted in complete disregard to the provisions of law, by not obtaining Registration under the Rules, then such interpretation would put the wrongdoer in a more advantageous position in comparison to those who had obtained registration certificate after reserving some of the Plots/houses/flats for weaker section of society as well as by mortgaging some of plots/houses/flats with Municipal Council. Such an interpretation would run contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Abharansala (Supra)."
9. Therefore, any interpretation which gives any undue advantage to the wrongdoers should be avoided and in case if it is 5 held that the word "colonizer" mentioned in section 61 (D) of 1993 Adhiniyam is restricted/confined to the registered colonizer only, then it would frustrate the very purpose of the Act. Accordingly, it is held that the word "colonizer" would include registered as well as unregistered colonizer. Therefore, it cannot be said that any action taken under Section 61 (D) of 1993 Adhiniyam is bad or without jurisdiction. So far as the contention of petitioner that the petitioner has not carried out any development work is concerned, the same is the disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that, if so advised, the petitioner can assail the impugned order dated 19.03.2021 passed by SDO, Sironj District Vidisha on merits before the appropriate/appellate forum.
11. With aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH SHASH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09 e066bc6b58cb947c1474b7dc349a1cf27 eaa2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, ANK serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EA ADE1E0B3B8565CB3A7DC9F5CD048197 DF0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU SHASHANK Date: 2025.07.04 17:51:00 +05'30'