Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rambharose Kacchi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183
1 WP-2080-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 9 th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 2080 of 2026
RAMBHAROSE KACCHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikas Samadhiya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks following reliefs:-
"A. That, the order Annexure P/1 dated 26.09.18 passed by the respondent No. 2 may kindly be quashed.
B. That FIR registered at Crime No. 293/2018 at Police Station Lahar District Bhind for offence under Section- 339(C) of Municipalities Act may kindly be quashed. C. Any other writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit or necessary in the interest of justice. D. Award the cost of the petition and direct the respondent to pay the same to the petitioner."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by placing reliance on an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.29427/2022 (Annexure P/7), submits that the order passed by the Collector, Bhind directing the Chief Municipal Officer to register an FIR against the petitioner on the allegation of illegal colonization, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 2 WP-2080-2026 and the consequent FIR registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No.293/2018 at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind under Section 339(C) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction.
4. He submits that even in the case of illegal colonization, the Collector has no jurisdiction or authority to direct for registration of an FIR and, in case the petitioner is required to be prosecuted for violation of Section 339 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, then, the course open is to file a criminal complaint under Section 313 of the said Act. He further submits that the said aspect has already been considered and decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.29427/2022 and other connected bunch of cases and, therefore, the entire proceedings instituted against the petitioner including the FIR, deserves to be quashed.
5. He further submits that even otherwise, there is nothing available on record to make out a case of illegal colonization against the petitioner. Even the order dated 22.09.2018 (Annexure P/3) passed by the SDO (Revenue), imposing penalty on the petitioner for illegal diversion and referring the matter to the Collector to take action under Section 339(C) (D) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 is without any basis.
6. He further submits that though the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 was passed way back and the FIR was also registered on 28.09.2018 yet, since no action was being taken against the petitioner on the basis of the said FIR, the petitioner did not challenge the same within a reasonable time. It is only when the respondents are now proceeding against the petitioner that the cause of action to file the present writ petition has Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 3 WP-2080-2026 accrued. He submits that the petition deserves to be entertained and the proceedings deserves to be stayed.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
8. A perusal of the order dated 26.09.18 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Bhind indicates that the direction was issued for lodging of an FIR against persons found to be indulged in illegal colonization in compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.12.2012 in W.P. No.7617/2010 and the orders dated 09.11.2016, 14.09.2018 and 26.09.2018 passed in Contempt Case No.367/2015 and also the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.125/2013.
9. Since the aforesaid orders were not initially filed along with the petition, this Court vide order dated 28.01.2026 directed the petitioner to place on record the orders passed by this Court as referred to in the impugned order dated 26.09.2018. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, the petitioner has filed the aforesaid orders vide Document No.2324/2026.
10. The perusal of the order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7617/2010: Pooran Singh Narwaria vs. State of M.P. & Ors. indicates that a PIL came to be filed before this Court seeking a direction for taking action against illegal colonization in District Bhind. The Division Bench of this Court, after noticing various provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, directed the respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 6 to identify the cases of illegal colonization and in case, any person is found Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 4 WP-2080-2026 to have sold land without obtaining licence of registration as a colonizer and without diversion, appropriate proceedings were directed to be initiated against such persons in terms of Section 339 (C) of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 including action for punishment of such offenders.
11. It appears that alleging non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7617/2010, a contempt petition bearing Conc. No.367/2015 was filed before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.09.2018, directed the Collector, Bhind to report compliance of the order dated 10.12.2012. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court was not satisfied with the initial compliance filed in Conc. No.367/2015 and therefore vide order dated 26.09.2018, after taking into consideration the affidavit filed by the Collector regarding strict compliance of the order passed in the PIL within a period of 72 hours, directed listing of Conc No. 367/2015 on 01.10.2018.
12. The aforesaid orders have been filed by the petitioner along with Document No.2324/2026. It is thus clear that the order dated 26.09.2018, impugned in the present writ petition was passed by the Collector, Bhind in order to report compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the order dated 26.09.2018 stood executed on 28.09.2018 inasmuch as the FIR was registered against the petitioner vide Annexure P/2.
13. Since the action against the petitioner was taken by the respondents/authorities in compliance of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the same cannot be treated to be arbitrary or illegal.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 5 WP-2080-2026 However, since the petitioner has raised the ground of competence and jurisdiction of the Collector to pass an order directing for lodging of an FIR on the allegation of illegal colonization against the petitioner, the same is taken up for consideration.
14. The issue with regard to registration of an FIR on the allegation of illegal colonization and violation of the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Laxmandass Krishnani vs. Municipal Council, Guna, reported in 2018 (1) MPLJ 127 and the Bench of this Court, while taking into consideration various provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 so also, Rule 2(h) of the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, has held as under:-
"9.Section 312 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as under:-
"312. Power to institute legal proceedings and obtain legal advice.-
With the previous sanction of the Council, the Chief Municipal Officer, or such other officer, as may be authorized by the Council in this behalf, may on behalf of the Council-
(a) institute, defend or withdraw from legal proceedings under this Act, or under any rule or by law made thereunder, orunder any other enactment for the time being in force;
(b) admit, compromise or withdraw any claim made under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder, or under any other enactment for the time being in force; and
(c) obtain such legal advice and assistance as he may, from time to time, think it necessary or expedient to obtain for any purpose referred to in the foregoing clauses of this section, or for securing the lawful exercise or discharge of any power or duty vesting in or imposed upon the Council, any of its committees or any municipal officer or servant"Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 6 WP-2080-2026
10.Referring to the words "legal proceedings" as mentioned in Section 312(a) of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that it has a wide connotation and, therefore, even the "prosecution" should also be included in the word "legal proceedings".
11.The contention raised by the counsel for the applicant is misconceived and cannot be accepted. It is well established principle of law that the legislature has not used a single word without any purpose as legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain. Every attempt should be made to give purposive meaning to each and every word used by the legislature in a statute.
12.The moot question for determination is that whether the word "legal proceedings" would include "criminal prosecution" or not.
13.Section 313 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as under:-
"313. Council may prosecute.- (1) The Council, the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorized by the Council in this behalf in the case of Municipal Council and the Council or any other officer authorized by the Council in this behalf in the case of Nagar Panchayat may direct-
(i) any prosecution for any offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder;
(ii) Proceedings to be taken for the recovery of any penalties and for the punishment of any person offending against the provisions of this Act or of any rule or bye-law made thereunder;
(iii) that the expenses of such prosecutions or other proceedings be paid out of the Municipal fund:
Provided that no prosecution for an offence under this Act or under any rule or bye-law made thereunder shall be instituted except-
(i) within 12 months next after the date of the commission of such offence; or
(ii) if such date is not known or the offence is a continuing one, within twelve months next after the date of which the commission or existence of such offence was first brought to the notice of the Council or of any officer or servant whose duty it is to report such offence to the Council. (2) Any prosecution under this Act or under any rule or bye-law thereunder may, save as therein otherwise provided, be instituted before any Magistrate; and every fine or penalty imposed under or by virtue of this Act or any rule or bye-law thereunder, and any compensation expenses, charges or damages for the recovery of which no special provision is otherwise made in this Act may be recovered on application to any Magistrate by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 7 WP-2080-2026 distress or sale of any movable property within the limits of his jurisdiction belonging to the person from whom the money is claimed."
14. Thus it is clear that the criminal prosecution by the Municipal Council is governed by the provisions of Section 313 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 whereas the remaining legal proceedings are governed by the provisions of Section 312 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. When a separate Section has been incorporated in the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 for criminal prosecution by the Municipal Council, then, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 313 would be governed by the provisions of Section 312 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The Council, Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorized by the council in this behalf may direct any prosecution for an offence under this Act or under any Rule or by law made thereunder.
15. It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 313 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 would apply only when a complaint is filed by an officer under the directions of either the Council or the Chief Municipal Officer or any other officer authorized by the Council in this behalf and when the Chief Municipal Officer himself decides to file a comlaint, then the provisions under Section 312 of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 would come into play.
16. This submission made by the counsel for the applicant cannot be accepted. If the Chief Municipal Officer has authority to direct anybody to file a complaint on behalf of the Council, then he can certainly file a complaint by himself on behalf of the Council. Whether the complaint has been filed by the Chief Municipal Officer himself on behalf of the Council or the complaint has been filed by any other person under the directions of the Chief Municipal Officer on behalf of the Council, would not make any difference.
17. Suffice it to say that for every criminal prosecution by the Council, only the provisions of Section 313 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 would apply and the provisions of Section 312 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 would not govern the criminal prosecution by the Council.
18. Hence, it is held that the complaint filed by the Chief Municipal Officer on behalf of the Municipal Council, Guna is in accordance with law and hence, the submission made by the counsel for the applicant with regard to the maintainability of the complaint filed by the Chief Municipal Officer on behalf of the Municipal Council, Guna is hereby rejected.
19. It is next submitted by the counsel for the applicant that under Rule 15-C of Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 8 WP-2080-2026 (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and conditions) Rules, 1998, the complaint can be filed only by the competent authority and the competent authority has been defined under Rule 2(h) of Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions), Rule 1998 which reads as under:-
"2(h) "Competent Authority" means in relation to such Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Corporation, Municipal Commissioner and in relation to such Municipal area which comes within the limit of any Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue);"
20. Rule 15-C of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 reads as under:-
"15-C. Action to be taken against the person for construction of the illegal colony.- Action for punishment shall be taken in accordance with the law against the person for construction of illegal colony and action for recovery of the amount which is to be recovered from such person shall also be taken by the competent authority."
21. From the plain reading of Rule 15-C of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, it is clear that this rule is in two parts. The first part of the rule speaks of action for punishment which shall be taken for construction of illegal colony and the second part of the rules deals with the action for recovery of the amount which is recoverable from such person shall be taken by the competent authority. The first part of the rule is independent of the second part of the rule. If the interpretation of the rule as suggested by the counsel for the applicant is accepted, then it would mean that the complaint can be filed only by the competent authority i.e., the SDO whereas this interpretation is not permissible as it would result in head on clash with Section 339-C of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishawveer and Anr. v. State of M.P. decided on 04/12/2013 in MCRC No.599/2013 has held as under:-
"In the present case, the complaint filed by the learned SDO is without authority, therefore, the FIR (Annexure A/1) registered on the report of SDO for offence punishable under Section 339(C) of Municipalities Act is not maintainable and same is hereby quashed.
With the aforesaid petition stands allowed and disposed of."
22. Therefore, the contention made by the counsel for the applicant that the complaint can be filed only by the competent authority as per the provisions of Rule 15-c of the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 9 WP-2080-2026 Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
23. It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant that it is apparent from the complaint that no independent mind has been applied by the Chief Municipal Officer or the Council and the complaint has been filed merely in compliance of the order passed by the SDO, therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed.
24. Suffice it to say that the allegations against the applicant are that he had carried out the colonization work without getting himself registered as a colonizer and without getting the land diverted as well as without obtaining necessary sanctions under public statutes.
25. It is not the case of the applicant that he is holding any license for developing the colony as required under Section 339-A of Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act or under Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 or under any other statute. If any fact has been brought to the knowledge of the Municipal Council by the SDO and, if, an advice is given by him to the Municipal Council to lodge a complaint, then it cannot be said that the said complaint was lodged merely in compliance of the order of the SDO."
15. It is noteworthy that in the case of Laxmandass (supra), this Court has considered the unamended definition of "competent authority" as provided under Rule 2(h) of the Rules of 1998. However, vide amendment dated 22.04.2013, apart from the SDO, the Collector has also been included within the definition of the "competent authority" in Rule 2(h) of the Rules of 1998.
16. In view of the aforesaid consideration and proposition of law already settled by this Court in the case of Laxmandass (supra), the ground raised by the petitioner with regard to non-competence or lack of jurisdiction of the Collector to direct for lodging of an FIR in the matter of alleged illegal colonization, being baseless and misconceived, is hereby rejected.
17. Suffice it to say that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had carried out the colonization work without getting himself registered Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 10 WP-2080-2026 as a colonizer and without getting the land diverted as well as without obtaining necessary sanctions under public statutes.
18. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is holding any license for developing the colony as required under Section 339-A of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 or under the Madhya Pradesh Nagarpalika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998 or under any other statute. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmandass Krishnani (supra).
19. Similarly, in the identical matter, when an order was passed by the Collector for registration of an FIR for the offence of illegal colonization, the matter travelled upto the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior, vide order dated 7.3.2025 passed in W.A. No.644/2025 (Dilmeet Singh Bal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.), considered somewhat similar arguments wherein, the FIR was already registered and has held as under:-
"3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not a colonizer but he is an agriculturist and was doing all the activities of agriculture over the land in question. No activity of sub-dividing the land into plots has been made by the petitioner over the land in question. It is further submitted that order impugned suffers from the principle of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to registration of FIR against him. The ground in relation to legal bar in registration of FIR against the petitioner has also been raised. According to counsel for the petitioner, learned Writ Court without considering the controversy in correct perspective, declined to interfere in the matter. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents/State while supporting the order passed by learned Writ Court, opposed the prayer and submits that since petitioner was found to be involved in illegal colonization therefore, rightly FIR has been registered against him. Thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal.Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 11 WP-2080-2026
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, petitioner has taken exception to the order dated 05-11-2024 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector District Guna. Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the directions of Collector for registration of FIR against the petitioner on the pretext as mentioned in the order itself.
7. On that direction, FIR has also been registered vide crime No.1066/2024 at Police Station Guna District Guna on 07-11- 2024.Once direction has been made and FIR has been registered, then petitioner cannot agitate this question by way of writ petition where judiciousness of direction given by the Collector can be challenged. Investigation is underway and petitioner has sufficient opportunity to plead and prove his part of truth.
8. As such one has to see the dispute from another vantage point. Here, the Collector has given direction as an informant as per Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and it cannot be contended that before registration of offence, petitioner was required to be heard. Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 bars any injunction on initiation of criminal proceedings. Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act reads as under:
"41. Injunction when refused.--
An injunction cannot be granted--
(a) xx xx xx
(b) xx xx xx
(c) xx xx xx
(d) to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a criminal matter."
9. Perusal of Section 41(d) of the Specific Relief Act gives guidance that no injunction can be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceedings in a criminal matter. Therefore, petitioner cannot seek quashment of direction given by the Collector for registration of FIR. Petitioner can only challenge FIR, consequential proceedings and charge-sheet etc. in accordance with law.
10. Learned Writ Court considered in detail about this aspect and thereafter held that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. When petitioner is agriculturist (if contention of petitioner is accepted, otherwise not) and does not fall under the category of colonizer even then, all these aspects can be taken into consideration later in appropriate proceedings.
11. Considering the rival submissions and the discussion surfaced in the impugned order, it appears that no case for interference is made out. Petitioners failed to establish his case for interference.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 12 WP-2080-2026 Accordingly, the order passed by learned Writ Court is hereby affirmed and the writ appeal preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
12. Appeal stands dismissed."
20. The conjoint reading of the various provisions of the Act of 1961 & the Rules of 1998 so also the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid W.A. No.644/2025 holding that the direction for registration of FIR/initiation of an inquiry cannot be stalled, as the accused has all opportunity to submit his defence at the appropriate stage, the order impugned in the petition or the FIR dated 28.09.2018 does not warrant any interference by this Court.
21. Though much reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.29427/2022 and other connected bunch of cases, however, the perusal of the same would indicate that in the said case the competence and jurisdiction were considered on the basis of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika (Colony Development) Rules, 2021, whereas in the instant case the action has been initiated against the petitioner not under the Rules of 2021 but under the M.P. Nagar Palika (Registration of Colonizer, Terms and Conditions) Rules, 1998, which were in vogue at the relevant time. Therefore, the said order dated 20.12.2024 will be of no assistance to the petitioner as it is fairly well settled in law that the judgments cannot be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and cannot be taken out of their context. In Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani, (2004) 8 SCC 579 : 2004 SCC OnLine SC 1243, it was held that:
"9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8183 13 WP-2080-2026 how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton [1951 AC 737 : (1951) 2 All ER 1 (HL)] (AC at p. 761) Lord MacDermott observed : (All ER p. 14 C-D) "The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima verba of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge,..."
[Emphasis Supplied]
22. In view of the above consideration, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, admission is declined and the writ petition stands dismissed.
(AMIT SETH) JUDGE Van Signature Not Verified Signed by: VANDANA VERMA Signing time: 10-Mar-26 6:34:55 PM