The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reinforced that procedural safeguards under municipal law cannot be bypassed to initiate criminal proceedings against individuals accused of unauthorized colonization. This ruling establishes a critical boundary between administrative enforcement and penal action, ensuring due process is not sacrificed for expediency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kaid Johar Talwala, was targeted for criminal prosecution under Section 339-C of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, based on allegations of involvement in an unauthorized colony in Manasa, Neemuch. The Collector issued an order directing the Chief Municipal Officer to initiate penal action without following the prescribed procedural steps under the Rules, 2021.
Procedural History
- 2026: Collector issued impugned order (Annexure P/7) directing criminal proceedings against petitioner
- No prior notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 22(3) of the Rules, 2021
- No intimation was sent to the Sub Registrar to halt registration of sale/agreements in the colony
- No public notice was published in local newspapers warning against transactions in the colony
- Petitioner challenged the order via Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Collector’s order on grounds of violation of mandatory procedural requirements under Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2021, and sought direction for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether criminal proceedings under Section 339-C of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, can be initiated against a developer without first issuing a 15-day notice for removal of unauthorized construction and intimating the Sub Registrar to suspend property registrations, as mandated by Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2021.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the binding precedent in Shivcharan v. State of M.P. and Others, where the same High Court had held that the procedure under Rule 22(3) and (4) is mandatory and non-negotiable. It was argued that bypassing these steps transforms an administrative enforcement mechanism into an arbitrary penal action, violating natural justice and the principle of proportionality.
For the Respondent/State
The State’s advocate conceded that the procedure laid down in Shivcharan had not been followed. No substantive defense was offered against the procedural violation, effectively admitting the illegality of the impugned order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2021, and found that the procedure is not directory but mandatory. The Court emphasized that the legislature intended a graduated response: first, notice and opportunity to remove; second, suspension of property transactions; and only third, initiation of criminal proceedings.
"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."
The Court held that the Collector’s direct invocation of penal provisions without adhering to this sequence amounted to a procedural illegality that vitiated the entire order. The Court distinguished between administrative remedial action and punitive criminal action, noting that the latter requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of power.
The Court further observed that the absence of public notice under Rule 22(3) deprived the general public of awareness, potentially exposing innocent buyers to fraudulent transactions. This reinforced the necessity of the entire sequence as a holistic safeguard.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court quashed the Collector’s order dated 27.01.2026 and directed the Collector to reconsider the matter afresh, affording the petitioner a proper hearing and strictly following the procedure under Rule 22(3) and (4) of the Rules, 2021, before initiating any criminal proceedings.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Not Optional
- Practitioners must insist on proof of compliance with Rule 22(3) before any criminal complaint is filed
- A mere allegation of unauthorized construction is insufficient to justify police action
- Failure to issue the 15-day notice renders subsequent criminal proceedings voidable
Sub Registrar Intimation Is Mandatory
- Any application for registration of sale or agreement in a disputed colony must be suspended after intimation
- Lawyers representing buyers should verify whether such intimation was issued before advising on property transactions
- Non-compliance can be raised as a defense in civil suits for specific performance
Criminal Action Is Last Resort
- Authorities cannot shortcut administrative remedies to impose criminal liability
- Courts will treat bypassing Rule 22(3)-(4) as an abuse of power under Article 14 and 21
- Petitioners in similar cases may seek quashing on grounds of procedural arbitrariness alone
