Unilateral Revocation Of Validly Granted Building Permission Sans Proof Of Fraud Violates Article 300-A Constitution: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondent authorities.
While asking the Municipal Corporation to take future action, strictly ensuring parity with similarly situated property owners within the same layout, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the unilateral revocation of a validly granted permission, especially after the citizen has expended massive capital on construction, without any proof of fraud, is violative of the right to hold property under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The High Court was considering the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondent authorities in unilaterally revoking the building permission previously granted to the petitioners. The petitioners also sought the quashing of the impugned notice for demolition.
The Single Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai stated, “The unilateral revocation of a validly granted permission, especially after the citizen has substantially altered their position and expended massive capital on construction, without any proof of fraud, is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the right to hold property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.”
“However, before parting with this order, it is clarified that the respondent Municipal Corporation, being a statutory authority, is not precluded from exercising its lawful powers and taking appropriate action in the future, if so necessitated. Nevertheless, any such future action must strictly ensure parity with similarly situated property owners within the same layout and must be driven bona fide by the larger public interest, strictly in accordance with the law, without subjecting the petitioners to any hostile discrimination.”, it added.
Senior Advocate Vishal Baheti represented the Appellant, while Advocate Shreyraj Saxena represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners claimed that they were the absolute and lawful owners of the subject property, which was purchased in two parts by the first Petitioner and her late husband, Late Laxmanji Chawla, vide registered sale deeds. Following the demise of Late Laxmanji Chawla, the property was duly mutated in the names of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted a formal application to the respondents for the grant of building permission, and the same was granted. The petitioners commenced and substantially completed the construction of three stories, but a show-cause notice was issued to them alleging that while the map depicted an 18-meter-wide road in front of the building, the proposed master plan prescribed a 30-meter road, and thus sought a response as to why the permission should not be revoked.
It was alleged that, ignoring the said reply, the respondents issued the order illegally revoking the building permission. Subsequently, a notice under Section 307 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, was issued, culminating in the final impugned demolition notice.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found a glaring and unexplained slumber on the part of the Municipal Corporation. The building permission was comprehensively processed, subjected to public objections, and formally granted, but the respondent authorities remained silent for nearly two years while the petitioners constructed three stories, only to abruptly issue a show-cause notice in February 2019.
“Furthermore, while the respondents attempt to shift the entire burden onto the petitioners, they remain conspicuously silent regarding their own erring officials. If it is indeed the case of the Corporation that the signature of the Building Inspector on the data form was forged, or that the verification was recorded under undue political or extraneous influence, there is absolutely no reply or pleading on record to indicate what disciplinary or legal action has been taken against such officer. This unexplained silence further weakens the defense of the respondents”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that the factual matrix led directly to the issue of hostile discrimination as the petitioners had conclusively demonstrated that the adjacent properties in the same block were granted valid building permissions under the 2021 Master Plan regime, explicitly leaving an 18-meter road in front. The respondents had not revoked those permissions nor initiated demolition against those structures. “Once it is established that there was no active concealment or false statement by the applicant, the rigorous, punitive powers of revocation under Rule 25 of the Rules, 2012 cannot be invoked as an afterthought to correct the Corporation's own delayed realizations”, it further stated.
Thus, allowing the writ petition, the Bench quashed the impugned revocation order and the subsequent demolition notices. Restoring the building permission granted to the petitioners, the Bench restrained the respondents from undertaking any demolition or coercive action against the subject property based on the quashed orders.
Cause Title: Smt. Manju Chawla and Others v. Indore Municipal Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:15157)
Appearance
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Vishal Baheti, Advocate Satyajeet Mane
Respondents/IMC: Advocate Shreyraj Saxena