2016 Supreme(SC) 942

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jagdish Singh Khehar, Arun Mishra, JJ.
Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare – Appellant
Vs.
Indore Municipal Corporation & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11307 OF 2016 [Arising out of SLP [C] No.30998 of 2010] WITH Civil Appeal No. 11308 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 31541/2011), Civil Appeal Nos.11309-11316 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] Nos. 469-476/2016), Civil Appeal Nos. 11317-11318 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] Nos. 416-417/2016), Civil Appeal Nos.11319-11324/2016(Arising out of SLP [C] Nos. 14502-14507/2016), Civil Appeal No.11325 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 15380/2016), Civil Appeal No. 11326 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 14531/2016), Civil Appeal Nos.11327-330 of 2016(Arising out of SLP [C] Nos.14493-14496/2016), Civil Appeal No. 11331 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 15421/2016), Civil Appeal No. 11332 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 16750/2016), Civil Appeal No. 11333 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 16827/2016), Civil Appeal No. 11334 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 19012/2016), Civil Appeal No. 11335 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 16891/2016), and Civil Appeal No. 11336 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 16742/2016)
Decided On : 29-11-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Development Plan once prepared would be binding on development authorities in the planning area as well as on the Municipal Corporation and other local authorities. User of a land cannot be modified in contravention of Development plan.
Scheme means the regional plan and development plan notified under section 52 of M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 as also any scheme framed u/s 49 and 50 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973
Ambit and scope of section 305 of Act, 1956 discussed.
De jure and de facto possession stands automatically vested in the Corporation on the happening of the exigencies as provided in section 305.
Being a special provision section 305 would prevail upon the general provisions with respect to acquisition of land in sections 78 and 79.
Provisions of sections 78 and 79 cannot be resorted to for the purposes mentioned in section 305.
Various rights of ownership are restricted by regional plan, development plan or the town development scheme.
Town planning scheme is subservient to development plan/zonal plan.
Section 305 is not violative of Article 14 and 19. Section 305 cannot be tested on the anvil of section 78/78 of Act, 1956 or section 56 of the Act of 1973.
A statute enacted to acquire property but not protected by Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of the Constitution of India can be challenged for violation of Article 14, violation of basic structure of Constitution, violation of Rule of Law which amounts to violation of basic structure or for lack of legislative competence.
Adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned before a court of law. Payment of market value in lieu of acquired property is not a condition precedent or sine qua non for acquisition.
There is no warrant for reading down section 305 of Act, 1956.

Headnote:(a) M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Section 25 – Development Plan once prepared – Binding on development authorities in the planning area as well as on the Municipal Corporation and other local authorities – User of a land cannot be modified in contravention of Development plan. (Para 20)

       (b) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 292 – Scheme – Means the regional plan and development plan notified under section 52 of M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 as also any scheme framed u/s 49 and 50 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Expression ‘scheme’ in section 292 not confined to scheme prepared under sections 49 and 50 of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. (Para 25)

       (c) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 – Power of Corporation to regulate line of buildings – Section 305 only contemplates issuance of a notice for removal of the part projecting beyond the regular line of public street and being greater portion or material portion of such building or external portion to the main building – Section 305 empowers the Corporation to intimate its intention to remove that part of the structure which is projecting beyond the regular line of public street – In case of external projections notice can be issued anytime – In case of material portion of such part projecting beyond the regular line of public street removal can be made – Also, when such projecting part has been taken down, burned down or fallen down, it has to be set back and part which has not fallen down, has to be removed. (Para 29, 30, 31)

       (d) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 and 307 – Section 307 deals with adjudicatory process and provides that the person concerned may show sufficient cause as to why the building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down – In absence of such sufficient cause Commissioner is authorized to remove, alter or pull down the building or work – Section 305 provides no such adjudicatory process – Therefore the offending projection of a building is necessarily to be removed. (Para 34)

       (e) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 – Vesting of public street – Deemed vesting on removal of the building or the projecting part or the Corporation issuing a notice when such re-building shall be set back or to the front line – Such line added by such action by setting back or removal shall be deemed to be a part of public street and shall vest in the Corporation. (Para 36, 45)

       AIR 1969 SC 579 – Relied upon

       (f) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 – Possession of public street – Vesting follows removal – On vesting possession stands transferred as part of public street – De jure and de facto possession stands automatically vested in the Corporation on the happening of the exigencies as provided in section 305. (Para 38, 45)

       (2013) 4 SCC 280 – Distinguished

       (g) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 – Interpretation – Language of section 305 plain, simple and clear; no defect in phraseology used – Exigencies requiring notice including the vesting part and deeming fiction very clear – No deficiency in the phraseology used – Nothing needs to be added, substracted, amended or making up the deficiencies by construction – No omission or lacunae, much less casus omissus in provisions contained in section 305. (Para 43)

       (1975) 4 SCC 22; (1953) SCR 533; (1990) 3 SCC 682; (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 323; (2002) 3 SCC 533; (1979) 1 AER 286; (2000) 2 AER 109; (2013) 8 SCC 789 – Referred

       (h) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Sections 78, 79 and 305 – Section 305 deals with removal of building or any part of the building beyond the regular line of a “public street” – Sections 78 an 79 on the other hand deal with acquisition for a new street or for widening or improving an existing street – Provisions of acquisition under sections 78 and 79 ousted by the special provision in Section 305 – Being a special provision section 305 would prevail upon the general provisions with respect to acquisition of land in sections 78 and 79. (Para 49)

       AIR 1966 SC 828; AIR 1966 SC 1342; (1979) 3 SCC 347; (1982) 1 SCC 664; (1984) 4 SCC 27 – Relied upon

       (2003) 2 SCC 577; (2011) 5 SCC 729; (2003) 2 SCC 111; (2015) 10 SCC 241 – Referred

       (i) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Sections 305 and 306 r/w section 387 – Payment of ‘reasonable compensation’ – Compensation should be reasonable on the principle acceptable in accordance with law – Provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply – Section 387 requires determination of dispute regarding compensation by Panchayat/arbitration, failing which parties can approach District Court for adjudication following procedure provided in Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Provisions of sections 78 and 79 cannot be resorted to for the purposes mentioned in section 305. (Para 51)

       (j) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Sections 305, 78 and 79 – Section 305 aims at maintaining the public street line as determined by the Development Plan – Development Plan is binding on the Corporation u/s 19(5) and 25 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Various rights of ownership restricted by regional plan, development plan or the town development scheme – User of the owner’s land, property cannot be in derogation to any of them – Development plan is binding upon Corporation and local authorities and all concerned including the owners – Resorting to acquisition u/s 78 and 79 shall defeat the entire purpose of preparation of Development Plan. (Para 52, 53)

       (k) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 – Reservation and acquisition – Section 305 provides for vesting of property in the area delineated by development plan/master plan though held by the owner – Such vesting puts restrictions on the ownership rights prohibiting construction derogatory to the development plan/master plan in the area – Even otherwise section 305 provides a reasonable method of acquisition by preparation of development plan/master plan or a town improvement scheme followed by adjudicatory process and compensation. (Para 57)

       (2011) 3 SCC 1 – Referred

       (l) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305, 291, 292 and 66(1)(y) r/w section 49/50, M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 – Regional plan, development plan or town development scheme – Have to be understood included in expresssion ‘scheme’ – Development plan itself is binding – Has to be implemented by Corporation not only u/s 292 but also u/s 66(1)(y). (Para 59, 60)

       (m) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 – Strict construction as required for expropriatory legislation – Corporation implementing the final development plan after following exhaustive procedure consistent with the principles of natural justice, and in the larger public interest – Town planning scheme subservient to development plan/zonal plan – Final development plan being binding, such act held, is permissible. (Para 61, 62, 63)

       (2007) 8 SCC 705; (2005) 7 SCC 627; (2015) 10 SCC 400 – Referred

       (n) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 and 306 – Validity – Section 305 a special provision – Classification of public street – Not discriminative – Not violative of Article 14 – Section 305 cannot be tested on the anvil of section 78/78 or section 56 of the Act of 1973. (Para 64)

       AIR 1954 SC 545 – Referred

       (o) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 and 306 – Pleading of discrimination – Acquisition for other area and case of public street – The other area not falling in regular line of public street as per development plan – Plea rejected. (Para 65)

       (1973) 1 SCC 500 – Relied upon

       AIR 1965 SC 1017 – Distinguished

       (p) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 and 306 – Validity – Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India – Compensation – Contention of not providing rational, reasonable, relevant principle for determination of compensation – Obligation to pay compensation – Depends upon terms of statute and the legislative policy – Statute providing for no compensation, nil compensation or illusory compensation must be just, fair and reasonable – Right to compensation cannot be read into Schedule VII List III, Entry 42. (Para 67)

       (2011) 9 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (q) Interpretation of statute – Validity – A statute enacted to acquire property but not protected by Articles 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of the Constitution of India – Can be challenged for violation of Article 14, violation of basic structure of Constitution, violation of Rule of Law which amounts to violation of basic structure or for lack of legislative competence – Even the statutes protected by Articles 31A, 31B and 31C can still be challenged under Article 32 or 226 for violation of rule of law if undermining basic structure of the Constitution, or for lack of legislative competence. (Para 67)

       (2007) 2 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (r) Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – Section 305 and 306 – Validity – Compensation – Adequacy of – Cannot be questioned before a court of law – Payment of market value in lieu of acquired property – Not a condition precedent or sine qua non for acquisition – Instant case – Not a case of no compensation or illusory compensation – Sections 305 and 306 require ‘reasonable compensation’ – In consonance with Article 300A, Constitution of India – Instantly, amount of payable compensation specified and principles regarding the same fairly culled out – Provisions of sections 305 and 306 r/w section 387 held valid – Held, section s 305 and 306 do not violate Articles 14 and 19. (Para 68, 69, 70, 71)

       (2011) 8 SCC 708; (1970) 1 SCC 248; (1972) 1 SCC 802 – Relied upon

       (s) Sections 305, 306 and 387 – Reading down – Principles quite reasonable – No warrant for reading down – When no time limit is fixed for payment of compensation, it has to be awarded within a ‘reasonable time’. (Para 72, 75)

       (1972) 1 SCC 802 – Relied upon

       (2015) 14 SCC 327 – Referred

       (2016) 3 SCC 183; (2015) 10 SCC 241; (2015) 10 SCC 400; AIR 1969 SC 579; SLP (C) No. 31541/2011 – Distinguished

       Facts of the case:

       The matter arises out of Bhopal Municipal Corporation and Indore Municipal Corporation. The action taken by the Municipal Corporations of Bhopal and Indore under section 305 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 has been questioned.

       The Single Bench at Jabalpur had allowed the writ application and held that the land be acquired under the provisions of the Act of 2013.

       Aggrieved thereby, writ appeals were filed by Bhopal Municipal Corporation which have been allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 9.5.2016 by a Division Bench of the High Court of M.P.

       Finding of the Court:

       Section 305 and 306 of the Act, 1056 are constitutionally valid.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.