2016 (11) TMI 1689 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquisition of Land Under Section 305 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Appellants' main submission was that they had obtained the permission from the Municipal Corporation so as to raise construction - HELD THAT - Section 305 deals with the power of Corporation to regulate line of buildings. If any part of the building falls within the regular line of a public street either existing or as determined for the future or beyond the front of immediately adjoining building, the Corporation may issue a notice either that part which is projecting or some portion of the part projecting, shall be removed or that when the building is rebuilt, the portion projecting shall be set back to and the portion of the land added to the street by such setting back or removal , shall henceforth be deemed to be part of the public street and shall vest in the Corporation - The interpretation suggested upon Section 292, as to the expression scheme Under Section 291 of the Act of 1956 or only to a scheme Under Section 49/50 of the Act of 1973 cannot be accepted. The provisions of the Act of 1973 and the provisions of Section 292 of the Act of 1956. Under the Act of 1973, there is a regional plan, development plan or town development scheme they have to be understood included in expression 'scheme' under the provisions of Section 292. Article 300A enables the State to put restrictions on the right by law but the same should not be arbitrary or excessive or beyond what is required in public interest. The imposition of restriction must not be disproportionate to a situation or statute. Legislation providing for deprivation of property Under Article 300A must be just, fair and reasonable - it cannot be said that illusory compensation is provided Under Section 306 read with Section 387. The decision renders no help to the cause espoused on behalf of the Appellants and on a closer scrutiny, rather counters it. Reasonable compensation is payable by the Corporation for building or part thereof excluding the land under proviso to Section 305(1) and compensation for inclusion of land in public street is payable Under Section 306(3) of the Act. We do not find any ground so as to read down the provisions. We refrain to comment upon the submission with respect to the granting additional FAR is not acceptable to some Appellants, as it is not the stage of dealing with compensation how the total indemnification is to be made, whether FAR is acceptable to the Appellants or not, cannot be decided at this stage - The Appellants are at liberty to raise the question with respect to the adequacy of compensation and how the provision of Section 387 has to be interpreted and what would be the just compensation at the appropriate stage of determination of compensation. The appeals being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of actions taken under Section 305 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956.
2. Vires of Sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956.
3. Compensation and acquisition processes under Sections 305, 306, and 387 of the Act of 1956.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and their application.
5. Harmonious construction of various statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Actions under Section 305 of the Act of 1956:
The Supreme Court examined the actions taken by the Municipal Corporations of Bhopal and Indore under Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The appellants questioned the legality of these actions, arguing that the acquisition of land should be conducted under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court held that Section 305 allows the Corporation to regulate the line of buildings and remove any part of a building projecting beyond the regular line of a public street. The Court found that the actions taken by the Municipal Corporations were in accordance with the law and did not require acquisition under the 2013 Act.

2. Vires of Sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956:
The appellants challenged the constitutionality of Sections 305 and 306, arguing that they violate Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution by providing for automatic vesting of land without reasonable compensation. The Court upheld the constitutionality of these sections, stating that they provide for reasonable compensation and are not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court emphasized that the provisions are designed to serve public interest by maintaining the regular line of public streets and are thus valid.

3. Compensation and Acquisition Processes:
The Court discussed the compensation mechanisms under Sections 305, 306, and 387 of the Act of 1956. Section 305 allows the Corporation to remove structures projecting beyond the regular line of a public street and provides for reasonable compensation to the owner. Section 306 outlines the compensation process, and Section 387 provides for arbitration in cases of disagreement over compensation. The Court noted that these provisions ensure that owners receive fair compensation and that the process is just and reasonable.

4. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions:
The interpretation of Section 305 was a key issue, with the appellants arguing that it only allows voluntary removal by the owner. The Court rejected this interpretation, stating that Section 305 empowers the Corporation to remove structures projecting beyond the regular line of a public street. The Court clarified that the provision includes the power to remove and set back buildings and that vesting of land in the Corporation occurs automatically upon removal or setting back.

5. Harmonious Construction of Provisions:
The Court emphasized the need for harmonious construction of the Act of 1956 and the Act of 1973. It held that the specific provisions of Section 305 take precedence over the general provisions of Sections 78 and 79 regarding acquisition. The Court noted that the development plan, once finalized, is binding on all authorities and must be implemented without requiring further acquisition under Sections 78 and 79.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the actions taken by the Municipal Corporations under Section 305 of the Act of 1956, finding them to be legal and in accordance with the statutory provisions. The Court also upheld the constitutionality of Sections 305 and 306, stating that they provide for reasonable compensation and are not arbitrary or discriminatory. The Court emphasized the importance of harmonious construction of statutory provisions and the binding nature of the development plan. The appeals were dismissed, and the actions of the Municipal Corporations were deemed valid.