Authorities Can't Deny Development Permission While Merely Awaiting Directions From State: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has highlighted that the authority granting development permission cannot withhold or deny approvals solely on the ground that they are awaiting directions from the State Government.The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed "a statutory authority must exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and cannot refuse to act on the pretext of awaiting instructions,...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has highlighted that the authority granting development permission cannot withhold or deny approvals solely on the ground that they are awaiting directions from the State Government.
The bench of Justice Himanshu Joshi observed
"a statutory authority must exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and cannot refuse to act on the pretext of awaiting instructions, unless such instructions are expressl mandated by statute".
A petition was filed by MGR Developers seeking directions to the authorities to grant development permission for its proposed residential colony 'Vimal Shree Shubhaangan'.
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, claimed rights over 2.897 hectares of land situated at Village Chitkana in District Indore, where it proposed to develop the said colony.
On March 6, 2021, the State Government revised the boundaries of the Indore Development Scheme 2021, bringing 79 villages, including village Chitkana, within the planning area. Although objections were invited pursuant to the notification, the land use of Village Chitkana continued to be shown as Non-Planning Agriculture Land.
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning Indore, who issued a favourable opinion on July 29, 2021, stating that the proposed development could be permitted subject to compliance with the MP Land Revenue Code 1959, and the MP Gram Panchayat (Development of Colonies) Rules 2014.
In compliance with these conditions, the petitioner applied for land diversion under Section 59 of the MP Land Revenue Code, which was allowed by the competent revenue authorities through orders dated October 5, 2021, October 7, 2022 and October 10, 2022, thereby lawfully permitting residential use of the land. The petitioner also obtained coloniser registration from the Indore Collector in September 2022.
The petitioner argued that despite fulfilling all statutory requirements, the authorities failed to assess development fees or grant development permission. The petitioner highlighted that similarly situated colonies in village Panchdehariya and Hatod, which were also included under the same 6 March 2021 notification, had been granted development permissions.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached the High Court in WP 33957 of 2025, which was disposed of on August 29, 2025, directing the authorities to consider the petitioner's case for assessment of development fees. However, by an order dated October 22, 2025, the competent authority rejected the petitioner's case for assessment of development fees.
However, by an order dated October 22, 2025, the competent authority rejected the petitioner's claim because the directions from the State Government regarding the newly included villages were awaited. A fresh T&CP sanction had not been submitted, invoking Rule 9(5) of the 2014 Rules.
The petitioner contended that the rejection order was arbitrary, contrary to the statutory scheme and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was argued that the grounds cited for rejection had been based on the 2014 Rules or the governing circulars and that the issue was already settled by the High Court's judgment dated December 9, 2025, in WP 22566 of 2025, where identical grounds had been rejected.
The State argued that the issue was similar, but attempted to justify the action on administrative grounds.
The bench noted that a statutory authority cannot refuse to exercise its jurisdiction merely on the pretext of awaiting government directions unless specifically mandated by the statute.
The court also noted that Rule 9(5) permits rejection only where fees are unpaid or documents are incomplete. Since the petitioner had already obtained diversion orders, colonisers' registration of a favourable T&CP opinion, insisting upon a fresh T&CP sanction, amounted to adding a condition not contemplated by law.
The court also observed that the inter-departmental coordination is an internal administrative function and cannot be imposed upon an applicant. Denial of permission to the petitioner, despite granting approvals to similarly situated developers, was held to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
The court emphasized, "It is also trite law that calling for opinions from other departments is an internal administrative function. An applicant cannot be compelled to obtain inter-departmental clearances which lie exclusively within the domain of the State authorities. Such an approach would render the statutory remedy illusory and place an impossible burden upon the applicant".
The court also referenced an order of December 9, 2025, passed in the WP 22566/2025, wherein it was held that rejection of development permission on identical grounds is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Judicial discipline mandates that coordinate benches follow such binding precedent, particularly when no distinguishing feature is shown.
The doctrine of legitimate expectation was also found to be applicable. It observed;
"The doctrine of legitimate expectation is also attracted in the present case. Once statutory permissions were granted, diversion was allowed, coloniser registration was issued, and similarly situated developers were granted development permission, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that its application would be considered in a fair, nondiscriminator and lawful manner. The impugned order frustrates such expectation without authority of law".
Thus, the bench directed;
"The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non application of mind, misinterpretation of statutory provisions, abdication of jurisdiction and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.10.2025 (Annexure P/10) is hereby quashed. Respondent No.2 is directed to assess the development fees and grant development permission to the petitioner for the proposed colony "Vimal Shri Aangan" in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order".
Case Title: MGR Developers v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-50453-2025]
For Petitioner: Advocate Karpe Prakhar Mohan
For State: Government Advocate Sumit Kapoor