2026 Supreme(MP) 175

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Raj Beesani And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others - Respondent
Misc. Petition No.4687 of 2025
Decided On : 05-02-2026

Property rights are constitutional rights. Development permissions are tied to the land and remain valid despite changes in ownership. Authorities cannot indefinitely withhold development permission by citing unrealized or expired public utility proposals, as such actions are arbitrary and violate protected property interests.

Headnote:

¼1½ uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k vfèkfu;e] 1973 & èkkjk 30 & fodkl vuqKk nsus ls bUdkj & ;kphx.k }kjk fookfnr Òwfe dk Ø; fd;k x;k & iwoZorÊ Lokeh d¨ iwo¨Zä Òwfe d¢ okf.kfT;d mi;¨x dh vuqKk igys gh çnku dh tk pqdh Fkh & ckn esa] fdlh Li"Vhdj.k d¢ fcuk] Òwfe mi;¨x ifjofrZr dj ^cl vM~Mk^ dj fn;k x;k & ;kphx.k fdlh xyr çfof"V d¢ fy, mÙkjnk;h ugÈ & fookfnr Òwfe d¢ okf.kfT;d g¨us dh lqfuf'pr jk; d¢ i'pkr~ Òh ;kphx.k d¨ fodkl vuqKk çnku ugÈ dh xà & çR;FkÊx.k dh laiw.kZ dkjZokà euekuh rFkk fofèk dh n`f"V esa fLFkj j[kus ;¨X; ugÈ & ,d ckj çnku dh xà vuqKk LokfeRo esa ifjorZu d¢ ckotwn fofèkekU; & gd d¢ varj.k esa rRdkyhu ÒwfeLokeh }kjk yh xà leLr vuqKk,¡ lfEefyr D;¨afd Òwfe mi;¨x Òwfe ds lkFk pyrk gS] O;fä ds lkFk ugÈ & vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLr & fookfnr Òwfe ds Òwfe mi;¨x dh çfof"V 60 fnu d¢ Òhrj lgh dj ;kphx.k d¨ okf.kfT;d mi;¨x d¢ fy, fodkl vuqKk çnku djus dk çR;FkÊx.k d¨ funs'kA ¼iSjk 15 ls 18 ,oa 26 ls 28

¼2½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuq- 300d & laifÙk dk vfèkdkj & Òwfe dk cl&vM~Ms d¢ fy, fpfUgr fd;k tkuk vfÒdfFkr & vBkjg o"kZ O;rhr gks x, & vkt rd cl vM~Mk fufeZr ugÈ & Òfo"; d¢ fy, Òh d¨Ã lek/kkuçn Li"Vhdj.k ugÈ fn;k x;k & ÒwfeLokeh d¨ fofèkiw.kZ ç;¨tu¨a d¢ fy, Òwfe dk mi;¨x djus ls euekSth jhfr ls nhÄZdky d¢ fy, çokfjr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2007½ 8 ,llhlh 705 vuqlfjrA 2015 vkj,u 415 % 2015 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 566 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 25

¼3½ Òkjr dk lafoèkku & vuq- 300d & laifÙk dk vfèkdkj & lafoèkku d¢ vèkhu lajf{kr & tulk/kkj.k d¨ laifÙk d¢ csgrj mi;¨x d¢ fy, vuqKk nsus gsrq mÙkjnk;h çkfèkdkfj;¨a d¢ euekusiu }kjk de ugÈ fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2007½ 8 ,llhlh 705 vuqlfjrA 2015 vkj,u 415 % 2015 ¼3½ ,eih,yts 566 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19 ,oa 22

(1) Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 -- S. 30 -- refusal of development permission -- disputed land purchased by petitioners -- earlier owner was already granted permission for commercial use of aforesaid land -- later, land use changed into 'bus-stand' without any explanation -- petitioners not responsible for any wrong entry -- development permission not granted to petitioners even after categorical opinion that disputed land is commercial -- entire action of respondents arbitrary and not tenable in eye of law -- permission once granted is valid despite change in ownership -- transfer of title includes transfer of all permissions taken by erstwhile land owner as land use runs with land and not with individual -- impugned orders set aside -- to correct land use entry of disputed land and grant development permission for commercial use to petitioners within 60 days. [Paras 15 to 18 & 26 to 28

(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 300A -- right to property -- land alleged to be earmarked for bus stand -- eighteen years lapsed -- no bus stand constructed till date -- no satisfactory explanation offered for future also -- land owner cannot be precluded for eternity in whimsical manner from using land for lawful purposes. (2007) 8 SCC 705 followed. 2015 RN 415 = 2015 (3) MPLJ 566 relied on. [Para 25

(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 300A -- right to property -- protected under Constitution -- cannot be curtailed by arbitrariness of authorities responsible for giving permission to public in general for better use of their property. (2007) 8 SCC 705 followed. 2015 RN 415 = 2015 (3) MPLJ 566 relied on. [Paras 19 & 22

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding land ownership and contested development permission. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' contentions regarding the applicability of the expired indore development plan and historical land use designations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. development permissions and land use status run with the land irrespective of change in ownership. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. absence of specific land reservation in official development plans invalidates denial of permission. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
5. right to property is a constitutional human right; authorities cannot indefinitely restrain land use for unexecuted developmental projects. (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
6. arbitrary refusal of development permission set aside with the order to grant sanction. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

ORDER :

BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

This Miscellaneous Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders dated 30/07/2024 (Annex.-P/20) passed in revision by Additional Chief Secretary of Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, whereby revision preferred under Section 32 of Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 has been dismissed, affirming order dated 30/09/2024 (Annex.-P/18) passed in Case No.0734/Appeal/2024-25 by Commissioner (Revenue), Indore Division, Indore; and order dated 24/07/2024 (Annex.-P/17) passed by Joint Director, Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh, Indore. By this petition, petitioners are claiming following reliefs:

(i) Quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 30/07/2025 (Annexure – P/20), 30/09/2024 (Annexure – P/18) and 24/07/2024 (Annexure – P/17) passed by Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 respectively;

(ii) Direct the Respondents to grant development permission to the petitioners for commercial purpose in respect of land admeasuring 0.498 hectares comprised in Survey No.103/1 (paiki), Gram Lasudiya Mori, Tehsil Juni Indore, District Indore within a time bound manner;

(iii) Allow this Petition with costs; and

(iv) Any other or further order as deemed fit this Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioners.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are the owners, occupiers and possession holders of the land admeasuring 0.498 hectare comprised in Survey No.103/1 (Paiki) situated at Village Lasudia Mori, Tehsil and District Indore, which has been purchased from the earlier owners vide two sale deeds dated 22/09/2023 and 25/09/2023 (Annex.-P/1) and the name of petitioners has also been mutated in the revenue records. Erstwhile owners of subject land has taken development permission on 23/03/1981 (Annex.-P/3) from respondent No.3 for commercial purpose of constructing a Cold Storage on the aforesaid land.

3. The aforesaid land was diverted to commercial use vide order dated 08/08/1981 and a permission for constructing a Cold Storage from Gram Panchayat was obtained. Even after categorical opinion of respondents No.2 and 3 that land use of the subject land is commercial but development permission has not been granted to the petitioners and the same has been ultimately refused by order dated 30/07/2025 (Annex.-P/20) by the State Government, therefore, this petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order and orders passed by respondents No.1 and 2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders mentioned in para 1 i.e. orders dated 24/07/2024, 30/09/2024 and 30/07/2025 have been passed mechanically without due application of mind. Indore Development Plan – 2021 came into effect on 01/01/2008 and expired on 31/12/2021 and thereafter, this development plan is not in existence as there is no saving clause in the aforesaid plan, therefore, it is not applicable in the case of petitioners.

5. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court towards letter dated 27/06/2008 (Annex.-P/8) issued by respondent No.3 submits that use of the subject land as per Development Plan was commercial and same is commerci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document