Under the M.P. Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012, a co-owner of an undivided property is entitled to seek and obtain construction permission for a specific portion if the terms of their title deed reflect a right to such specific portion, and the authority has verified the necessary documents.

ORDER

The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by III District Judge, Gwalior, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.73 of 2025, whereby the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, allowing the application of Respondent No. 3 for permission to construct a specified portion in the premises in question, was affirmed.

2. Short facts of the case are that respondent No.03 submitted an application to Respondents No.01 and 02 for building construction permission in respect of property bearing Building Nos.3711 and 3712, Zone No.13, Ward No. 57, situated at Dal Bazar, Lashkar. In support of the said permission, Respondent No.03 submitted copies of separate sale deeds executed in his favor dated 16.03.2024, claiming ownership of a 68.89% share in the property and, on that basis, sought permission for construction. Respondents No.01 and 02, being influenced by Respondent No.03, issued the order dated 25.11.2024 granting the said permission. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.728/25 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2025, granting liberty to file an appeal under the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act against the impugned permission. In light of the aforesaid liberty, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.73 of 2025 before the Appellate Court/III District Judge, Gwalior which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.05.2025 and the order dated 25.11.2024 was affirmed. Hence, the present petition.

3. Shri N.K. Gupta - learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava and Shri Ravi Ballabh Tripathi - learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned orders passed by the courts below are manifestly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled provisions of law, as the main documents decisive of the entire controversy are the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the present petitioner as well as respondent no.3 and upon a bare perusal of the sale deeds (Annexures P-4, dated 04.03.2022 and P-5, dated 10.03.2022), it is crystal clear that the petitioner purchased an undivided share of 31.11% in the entire property. The contents of the sale deeds unequivocally reveal that both the vendors of the petitioner and of respondent no.3 held undivided ownership in the property and that each conveyed only their respective undivided shares.

4. It is further submitted that similarly, respondent no.3, by two separate registered sale deeds dated 16.03.2024 (Annexures P-6 and P-7), purchased 68.89% undivided share of the same property. Thus, both parties i.e. petitioner and respondent no.3 are co-owners holding undivided shares, with no specific demarcation or partition of the property. Once it is admitted that both parties hold undivided shares, respondent no.3 had no independent right, title, or interest to seek or obtain construction permission over any specific portion of the property. Despite this, respondent nos.1 and 2, without examining the title documents of respondent no.3, which clearly mention “undivided share”—granted building permission in favour of respondent no.3 over a defined area. Such permission is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be set aside.

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner and respondent no.3 being co-owners, each is deemed to be in possession of every part of the