Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Lashya Developers Through Parnter ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2026
1 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302
W.P. No. 7585/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I NDO RE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 7585 of 2026
M/S LASHYA DEVELOPERS THROUGH PARNTER AND
AUTHORIZED PERSON ADITYA DAGARIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary -GA for the respondents/State.
Reserved on : 11/03/2026
Post on : 17/03/2026
______________________________________________________
ORDER
1. By way of the present writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to quash the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM 2 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026 notesheet/order dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by Respondent No. 3. By the said impugned order, the application preferred by the petitioner for the sanction of a layout map has been summarily rejected.
Facts of the Case
2. The petitioner is a partnership firm duly engaged in the business of developing townships and colonies within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The firm is represented by its partner and authorized signatory, Mr. Aditya Dagaria. The petitioner firm is the absolute owner of lands situated at Gram Harnya Khedi, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore, admeasuring a total of 5.668 hectares (comprising Survey Nos. 37/2/2, 37/2/1, 37/1, 26/1, 25/1, 22/5, 22/2, 20, 2/2, 2/1/2, 19/1/2, and 19/1/1/3), upon which it proposes to develop a colony named "HD Royal Estate".
3. The record reveals that the petitioner initially applied for a layout map sanction before Respondent No. 3 vide Application No. INDOLP15052550353. This initial application was rejected by Respondent No. 2, placing sole reliance upon a Revenue Inspector's report dated 08.07.2025. The said report opined that the approach road to the proposed colony passes through non-transferable Government land (Survey Nos. 1 and 70), operating as a common Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM 3 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026 road, and that the approval of private individuals owning adjacent survey numbers would be indispensable. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that this rejection was ordered unilaterally, without affording any opportunity of hearing.
4. Subsequent to the said rejection, the petitioner preferred a fresh application for a layout map sanction before Respondent No. 3, registered as Application No. INDOLP22112503975. The matter was again forwarded to the Revenue Inspector for an inspection report. On 24.11.2025, the Revenue Inspector submitted a report reiterating that the approach road traverses Government Survey Nos. 1 and 70 (classified as non-transferable), and additionally noted that approval from the owners of Survey Nos. 22/3 and 22/4 would be required to forge an approach road for the proposed colony situated on Survey Nos. 25/1 and 26/1.
5. Crucially, as the matter progressed, the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate (SDM) examined the record and expressly noted in the official proceedings that the requisite approval from private landowners is not required as the approach to the said land/colony is through public road. With this specific noting, the SDM forwarded the application to Respondent No. 3 for final approval. However, Respondent No. 3, without adverting to the fresh considerations or the SDM's specific recommendation, proceeded to reject the second application vide the impugned Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM 4 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026 notesheet dated 24.11.2025, solely on the premise that the petitioner's previous application had been rejected and no new facts had been brought on record.
Contentions of the Petitioner
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order dated 24.11.2025 is arbitrary, mechanical, and suffers from a gross non-application of mind. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 completely turned a blind eye to the specific findings recorded by the learned SDM, who had categorically clarified that permission from private landowners is not required. It is contended that the SDM's noting constituted a material change in circumstances and brought new facts to light, which Respondent No. 3 was legally bound to evaluate. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the impugned administrative action is vitiated by the failure of Respondent No. 3 to afford any opportunity of hearing, thereby running foul of the fundamental principles of natural justice.
Contentions of the Respondents
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has strongly opposed the writ petition. It is submitted that the action taken by Respondent No. 3 suffers from no Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM 5 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026 jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity. The respondents contend that since an earlier application on the identical subject matter and survey numbers had already faced rejection, Respondent No. 3 was entirely justified in dismissing the subsequent application on the ground that it presented no newly actionable facts.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the rival parties at length and carefully perused the materials available on record.
Analysis and Conclusion
9. The pivotal issue that falls for the consideration of this Court is whether Respondent No. 3 was justified in rejecting the petitioner's second application (INDOLP22112503975) in a summary manner, particularly in the face of a contrary noting made by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
10. A bare perusal of the record unequivocally demonstrates that while the Revenue Inspector's report dated 24.11.2025 flagged the necessity of obtaining approvals from private landowners, the learned SDM consciously applied his mind to the said report and the ground realities. The SDM arrived at a categorical conclusion, duly recorded in the proceedings, that such approval from private landowners is not required. By forwarding the matter to Respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM 6 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026 No. 3 with this noting, the SDM effectively superseded the obstacle that formed the basis of the initial rejection.
11. It is a well-settled proposition of law that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably, and with due application of mind. When a subordinate authority or a field officer (in this case, the SDM) submits a report or makes a noting that alters the factual complexion of a case, the sanctioning authority cannot brush it aside with a stroke of a pen. A perusal of the impugned notesheet dated 24.11.2025 reveals that Respondent No. 3 failed entirely to discuss, analyze, or even acknowledge the learned SDM's recommendation.
12. The reasoning adopted by Respondent No. 3 that "the application has already been rejected previously and no new facts have been brought on record" is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. The observation of the SDM itself constituted a "new fact" and a fresh ground for consideration. If Respondent No. 3 wished to differ from the conclusion drawn by the learned SDM, it was incumbent upon the authority to record cogent and explicit reasons for such disagreement. The issuance of a cryptic, one-line rejection order demonstrates a mechanical exercise of power and renders the order a non-speaking one.
13. Furthermore, the rejection of civil rights, such as the right to develop one's property, entails civil consequences. Therefore, Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM 7 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026 before arriving at a decision to reject the application, respondent No. 3 was obligated to observe the principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) by affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, which admittedly was not done in the present case.
14. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and legal analysis, the impugned action of Respondent No. 3 cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.
15. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order/notesheet dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P/4) passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside.
16. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 3 with a direction to restore Application No. INDOLP22112503975 to its original number and reconsider the same afresh. While undertaking this exercise, respondent No. 3 shall strictly take into consideration the recommendations and observations made by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate. Respondent No. 3 is further directed to afford a personal hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner and, thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with the law.
17. Let the aforesaid exercise be completed by respondent No. 3 within a strict time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM8 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7302 W.P. No. 7585/2026
18. Pending applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai) Judge hk/ Signature Not Verified Signed by: HARIKUMAR NAIR Signing time: 3/17/2026 5:17:40 PM