MP High Court Quashes IMC's Revocation of Building Permission, Restores Sanction Granted in 2017
The Indore bench held that Rule 25 of the MP Bhumi Vikas Rules cannot be invoked where the Corporation's own inspector verified the site before granting permission.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore has quashed the Indore Municipal Corporation's order revoking a building permission and the demolition notices that followed, restoring the sanction originally granted to Smt. Manju Chawla and other petitioners in July 2017. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, sitting singly, found that the Corporation's own building inspector had physically verified the site conditions before the permission was issued, making it legally impossible to later brand the sanction as a product of the applicant's misrepresentation. The judgment turns on the strict conditions under which Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012 permits revocation, and on the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary deprivation of property under Article 300-A.
The Property and the Permission
The petitioners own a house at Block No. 15/1, 32, Chain Singh Ka Bagicha, Indore. Smt. Manju Chawla and her late husband, Late Laxmanji Chawla, purchased the property in two parts through registered sale deeds dated 2 April 1998 and 14 May 1998. After Laxmanji Chawla's death, the property was mutated in the names of the present petitioners.
In July 2017, the petitioners applied to the IMC for building permission. The building officer published a general notice in a daily newspaper on 5 July 2017 inviting public objections. After conducting the necessary inquiry, the competent authority approved the layout and granted building permission on 27 July 2017 under Rule 27 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012. Acting on that sanction, the petitioners commenced construction and substantially completed three storeys, with only finishing works such as plastering and glass elevation remaining.
The Revocation and Demolition Notices
Nearly two years after the permission was granted, the IMC issued a show-cause notice on 28 February 2019. The notice alleged that while the layout plan submitted by the petitioners depicted an 18-metre wide road in front of the building, the Indore Master Plan 2021 prescribed a 30-metre road for that stretch, and asked why the permission should not be revoked.
The petitioners replied on 15 March 2019, pointing out that the building inspector himself had verified and submitted the data form recording the 18-metre road width, and that adjacent buildings on the same road had been granted permissions on the same basis. The IMC ignored the reply and issued the revocation order on 9 May 2019 under Rule 25 of the Rules, 2012, finding that material facts had been concealed and that the permission had been obtained through false representation. A notice under Section 307 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 followed on 11 September 2019, culminating in a final demolition notice dated 4 February 2020.
The petitioners challenged both the revocation order and the demolition notices before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Legal Contest Over Rule 25
Rule 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhumi Vikas Rules, 2012 permits revocation of a building permission only where there are “reasons to believe that such permission has been obtained on the basis of a false statement or any misrepresentation of any material fact.” The petitioners argued that this threshold was never met because the building inspector had himself physically verified the 18-metre road width on the data form before the file was forwarded for sanction. There was, they contended, no concealment or suppression of material facts on their part.
They relied on two earlier decisions of the same court — Dharmendra and Ors. v. Indore Municipal Corporation and Ors. (W.P. No. 557 of 1998, decided 30 July 1998, reported in 1999 (1) JLJ 119) and M/S S.R.J Betterbuild Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Writ Petition No. 22077 of 2022) — both of which held that Rule 25 applies strictly only where material facts have been explicitly suppressed or misrepresented by the applicant.
The petitioners also argued that once construction had commenced, the Commissioner had no power to cancel the permission under Section 299 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, and that such power, if contrary to the scheme, rested solely with the State Government under Section 299-A. They placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment in Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior v. Gopal Krishna, 2006 (2) M.P.L.J. 51.
The IMC countered that under Rule 31 of the Rules, 2012, the absolute responsibility to furnish true and correct information lies with the applicant and their architect. The building permission itself had stipulated this condition. The Corporation relied on Entry No. 8 of Chapter 3, Table 3.6 (page 76) of the Indore Master Plan 2021, which designates the width of Race Course Road (Yeshwant Niwas Road to Industry House) as 30 metres, making the 18-metre claim legally untenable against the statutory plan. The IMC also cited Vishal Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2007) 11 SCC 172, and Doiwala Sahkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand, (2007) 11 SCC 641, to argue that the petitioners could not claim negative equality based on permissions granted to others.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Pillai began by noting a “glaring and unexplained slumber” on the part of the Corporation. The permission had been processed, subjected to public objections, and formally granted on 27 July 2017. The IMC remained silent for nearly two years while the petitioners built three storeys, and only then issued a show-cause notice.
On the central question of Rule 25, the court found that the record completely failed to establish any fraud or active misrepresentation by the petitioners. The data form detailing site conditions had been physically verified and processed by the Corporation's own building inspector. When the statutory authority's own inspector verifies the existing 18-metre road and forwards the file for sanction, the subsequent approval cannot be treated as a product of the applicant's deceit.
The court also drew attention to a conspicuous silence in the IMC's pleadings. If the Corporation's case was that the building inspector's signature on the data form was forged, or that the verification was recorded under undue influence, there was nothing on record to show what disciplinary or legal action had been taken against that officer. That silence, the court held, further weakened the Corporation's defence.
On the road-width conflict, the court examined documents relating to the approved block layout of the erstwhile Indore Improvement Trust (Palasia Scheme II-C, Chain Singh Ka Bagicha). Within that specific inner layout, the functional road width is recognised as 60 feet (18 metres), distinct from the arterial 30-metre Race Course Road. The petitioners' property sits within this inner layout, not directly on the arterial road.
The discrimination argument proved decisive. The petitioners demonstrated that adjacent properties in the same block — House No. 13/1, House No. 6/1, and Block No. 31 — had been granted valid building permissions under the 2021 Master Plan regime, explicitly leaving an 18-metre road in front. The IMC had not revoked those permissions or initiated demolition against those structures.
The court distinguished the negative-equality precedents cited by the IMC. The doctrine of negative equality applies only when a party seeks the perpetuation of an illegality previously committed in favour of another. Here, the permissions granted to the adjacent property owners were not inadvertent mistakes. They were conscious administrative decisions based on the approved internal block layout plan of Chain Singh Ka Bagicha, which prescribes an 18-metre road. The petitioners were therefore claiming positive equality under Article 14, seeking identical treatment under a valid, existing local layout. The ratio of Vishal Properties and Doiwala Sahkari was held entirely inapplicable.
The court also distinguished Naveen Solanki and Another v. Rail Land Development Authority and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 452, and Ramesh Chandra Katariya and Others v. Indore Municipal Corporation and Others (W.P. No. 19848 of 2025), both cited by the IMC. Those matters dealt with absolute encroachments or undisputed statutory violations where no vested rights had crystallised through lawful municipal verification. In the present matter, the Corporation's own functionaries had verified the site and sanctioned the map, making those precedents factually distinguishable.
The court stated the governing principle plainly: once it is established that there was no active concealment or false statement by the applicant, the punitive powers of revocation under Rule 25 cannot be invoked as an afterthought to correct the Corporation's own delayed realisations. Unilateral revocation of a validly granted permission after the citizen has substantially altered their position and expended capital on construction, without proof of fraud, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Order
The writ petition was allowed. The revocation order dated 9 May 2019 and the demolition notices dated 11 September 2019 and 4 February 2020 were quashed and set aside. The building permission granted on 27 July 2017 stands restored. The IMC is restrained from undertaking any demolition or coercive action against the subject property on the basis of the quashed orders.
The court clarified that the IMC is not precluded from exercising its lawful powers in the future if so necessitated, but any such future action must ensure parity with similarly situated property owners within the same layout, must be driven bona fide by the larger public interest, and must not subject the petitioners to hostile discrimination. No order as to costs was made.