Supreme Court of India
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMAREversusINDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
- Citation
- 2016 INSC 1075
- Decided
- 29 November 2016
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- S KHEHAR
Holding
Section 305 authorises the corporation to remove projecting structures, and the land thus added to the street is deemed to vest in the corporation, making the provision constitutionally valid and overriding the general acquisition provisions.
Summary
The Supreme Court examined challenges by landowners to the Municipal Corporations of Bhopal and Indore who, under Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, issued notices to remove or set back building portions projecting beyond the regular line of a public street for a Bus Rapid Transit System (BRTS) corridor. The Court held that the language of s.305 clearly authorises removal, that the land added to the street by such removal or set‑back is deemed to become part of the public street and vests in the corporation without a separate acquisition under s.78/79. Compensation for loss is governed by s.306 read with s.387, which provides reasonable compensation and a mechanism for dispute resolution, and these provisions are not violative of Articles 14, 300A or 19 of the Constitution. The special provision of s.305 prevails over the general acquisition provisions, and the development plan and town planning scheme requirements do not invalidate the corporation’s power. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- The scope and mandatory nature of Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 regarding removal of structures projecting beyond the regular line of a public street.
- Whether vesting of land in the corporation occurs automatically upon removal or notice, obviating the need for separate acquisition under Sections 78 and 79.
- The adequacy and constitutionality of compensation under Sections 306 and 387, and compliance with Articles 14, 300A and 19 of the Constitution.
- Whether the special provision of Section 305 overrides the general land‑acquisition provisions of the Act.
- The effect of the development plan/town planning scheme on the corporation’s power under Section 305.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19, s. Article 300A
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956s. 212, s. 216, s. 305, s. 306, s. 307, s. 309, s. 310, s. 313, s. 330, s. 387, s. 389, s. 390, s. 391, s. 411, s. 78, s. 79
- Madhya Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973s. 13, s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 17, s. 18, s. 19, s. 25, s. 2(g), s. 2(o), s. 2(u), s. 2(w), s. 49, s. 50, s. 56
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Subjects
municipal corporationpublic streetland acquisitiondeemed vestingcompensationdevelopment planBRTS corridorconstitutional lawArticle 14Article 300Astatutory interpretation
Judgment
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 373
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE A
v.
INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11307 of2016)
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 B
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956:
s.305 - Rapid Transport System - BRTS corridor scheme for
improvement of public transport system - Widening of public roads C
for BRTS corridor - Action taken by Municipal Corporation u/s.305
for removal of building projecting beyond regular line of public
street - Propriety of. challenged by land owners - Held: The
opening part of s.305(1) and latter part after clause (b) make it
clear that a building or a part of the portion which projects into the
periphery of regular line of public street can be removed - The D
provisions of s.305 cast a mandate upon the Corporation to remove
whatever is projecting beyond the regular line of public street - No
fault in action taken by Corporation.
s.305 - Deemed vesting - Held: The vesting takes place, as
soon as the building is removed or notice is served for the building E
to be set back - As soon as the building or the projecting part is
removed or when the Corporation issues a notice when such re-
building shall be set back or to the front line, the line added by
such action by setting back or removal, shall henceforth without
any further formalities, be deemed to be a part of public street and F
shall vest in the Corporation - Vesting does not depend upon the
volition of the owner - Considering the deeming fiction in s.305
and y'!_stinf{ provision, de jure and de facto possession automatically
vest in the Corporation on the happening of the exigencies as
provided in s.305 - Municipalities - Expropriatory legislation -
Interpretation of statute. G
s.305 - No specific provision for taking over possession -
Held: By deeming fiction, vesting takes place, as such there was no
necessity of specific provision for taking over of the possession
that is implicit in the deeming part and vesting of the property by
H
373
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A legal fiction.
ss.305, 306, 387 - Compensation - Relevant provisions in
the Act - Held: s.387 provides for procedure in case compensation
determined u/s.306 is not acceptable - Dissatisfied claimants can
resort to s.387 which require determination of dispute by Panchayat/
B arbitration, and in case arbitration fails, parties can approach the
District Court ll'hich shall follow the procedure provided in Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 - The provision of s.387 is very wide and
covers all the cases in ll'hich an agreement is not arrived at with
respect lo compensation or damages which are under the Act directed
to be paid - s.387 would cover the provisions of compensation
c payable under ss.305 and 306 of the Act of 1956 - ss.305 and 306
use the expression 'reasonable compensation has to be paid· which
would mean, reasonable on the principle acceptable in accordance
with law - Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
ss.305, 78, 79 - Public street - Acquisition whether can be
D resorted u/ss. 78, 79 - Held: The language of s.305 is plain, simple
and clear - The exigencies when the notice can be issued including
the vesting part and deeming fiction are very clear - There is no
omission or lacunae, much less casus omissus in the provisions
contained in s.305 of the Act - lf the provision as lo public street is
E made dependent upon the acquisition of land. the very purpose
behind the provisions of s.305 would be frustrated - Development
plan once prepared is binding upon the Development Authorities in
the planning area as well as on the Municipal Corporation and the
local authorities and all concerned including owners - lf the land
falls in a regular line of public street. 110 construction can be raised
F and no projection can be made by 011•11er whereas it can be removed
or set back, as the case may be - 111 case acquisition is resorted to
under ss. 78 and 79, public street can never be widened and the
entire purpose of preparation of Development Plan shall stand
defeated.
G s.305 - Removal of building falling in regular line of public
street - Applicability of Maxim "Generalia specialibus non derogant
and Generalibus specialia derogant" - Held: Recourse to the provisions
of acquisition under ss. 78 and 79 is clearly ousted by the special
provision contained in s.305 of the Act of 1956-,- Being a special
provision with respect to maintaining a regular line of a public street
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 375
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
which has been carved out by the Legislature under s.305 of the A
Act of 1956, it would prevail upon the general provisions with respect
to acquisition of land as provided in ss. 78 and 79 thereof - Madhya
Pradesh Town and Country Planning Act, 1973 - s.56 - Maxims.
ss.305, 306, 387 - Computation of compensation - Held: The
provisions of ss.305 and 306 cannot be read in isolation - They B
have to be read with wholesome provision of s.387 and what is
contemplated under s. 387 has to be taken to be the principle of
reasonable compensation even in ss.305 and 306 - The principles
laid down in ss.305, 306 and 387 are quite reasonable - Reasonable
compensation is payable by the Corporation for building or part C
thereof excluding the land under proviso to s.305(1) and
compensation for inclusion of land in public street is payable under
s.306(3) of the Act- There is no ground to read down the provisions
- Holl' the compensation is to be worked out at the appropriate
stage, is the outcome of the authorities concerned and the job of
the arbitrator/District Court, as the case may be - Appellants are at D
liberty to raise the question with respect to the adequacy of
compensation and how the provision of s.387 has to be interpreted
and what would be the just compensation at the appropriate stage
of datermination of compensation.
s.387 - Compensation - s.387(5) empower the Corporation E
to take possession after determination of compensation by arbitrator
or by District Court - Applicability of s.387(5) in case of deemed
vesting - Held: The provisions contained in s.387(5) would be
applicable only to the acquisition resorted to under ss. 78 and 79,
and not to a case which is covered by the special provisions
contained in s.305 where the vesting is deemed to be by operation F
of law and as soon as there is deemed vesting, the area shall vest in
the Corporation and it shall be deemed to be a part of public
street - Thus, the provision of s.387(5) is not attracted when it is
deemed to be part of the public street on vesting in the Corporation.
Compensation - Delayed payment of compensation - BRTS G
corridor project - When no time limit is fixed for payment of
compensation, it has to be all'arded within a 'reasonable time' -
Law envisages speedy action without unreasonable delay and that
is what is expected of the concerned authorities, in respect of the
obligation imposed on them to be discharged - Municipalities. H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A Constitution of India:
Art.14 - Vires of s.305 of 1956 Act - Held: The provision of
s.305 when it deals with the public streets and removal of building
falling in regular line is a wholesome one and being a special
provision, based on classification made for the purpose of s.305 as
B to public street cannot be said to be suffering from vice or
discrimination and violative of Art. 14 - The procedure under s.305
of the Act of 1956 cannot be said to be onerous or harsh and it
cannot be tested on the anvil of provisions of s. 78179 of the Act of
1956 or s.56 of the Act of 1973 - Madhya Pradesh Town and
Country Planing Act, 1973 - s.56 - Madhya Pradesh Municipal
c Corporation Act, 1956 - s.305.
Art.300A - Scope of - Held: Art.300A enables the State to
put restrictions on the right to property 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
D situation or statute - Legislation providing for deprivation of
property under Art.300A must be just, fair and reasonable.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: In re: Provisions of the Act of 1973: 1. The
provisions of Act of 1973 show that the development plan once
E
prepared is binding upon the development authorities in the
planning area as well as on the Municipal Corporation and other
local authorities as the case may be. They cannot modify and
permit the user in contravention thereof. In other words,
restriction is imposed upon the owners on enjoyment of the
F property in violation of the development plan/regional plan, as
the case may be. Three different provisions are contained in the
Act of 1973 for preparation of regional plan, development plan
(master plan) and town development scheme. The regional plan
is prepared by the State Government. Development plan is
G prepared as per the provisions contained in Chapter IV, sections
13 to 19. Town development scheme can be framed by the
development authorities and it may declare its intention to do so
with the prior approval of the State Government. [Paras 20, 23)
[402-C-D; 403-H;404-A-B]
In re : Town Planning Scheme of the Act of 1956:
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 377
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
2. Section 291 of the Act of 1956 enjoins upon the Municipal A
Corporation to prepare town planning scheme. In case the
scheme has been sanctioned under the provisions of Town
Improvement Act, it is provided by section 292 of the Act of 1956
that no town planning scheme shall be made by the Corporation.
It is apparent that section 292 of the Act of 1956 refers to Town B
Improvement Act which was in vogue in different areas of
erstwhile Madhya Pradesh which has ultimately consolidated the
different Acts into the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960.
The Act of 1960 provided for various improvement schemes under
section 30. The Act of 1960 has ceased to be operative in the
areas, once the Act of 1973 has been made applicable by C
establishing the authorities under the provisions of sections 38
to 40. The expression 'scheme' in section 292 has to be taken to
mean the regional plan, development plan and also to any scheme
under section 49 framed under the Act of 1973. The provision is
not confined to a scheme prepared under sections 49 and 50 of D
the Act of 1973. There cannot be two schemes for the same area.
[Paras 24, 25)(404-C; 407-B-F]
In re : Scope of power of Corporation under Section 305 :
3.1 Section 305 deals with the power of Corporation to
regulate line of buildings. If any part of the building falls within E
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 p-0rtion
projecting shall be set back to and the portion of the land added F
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 words 'that the part or some portion of the
part projecting beyond the regular line' of the public street may
be: (a) greater portion of such building which has not fallen down; G
or (b) that projecting part is verandah, step or some other
structure external to the main building; or (c) whenever any
material portion or such material part has been taken down,
burned down or has fallen down. All these exigencies are covered
in the ken of section 305(1). Section 305 only contemplates
H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A issuance of a notice, in the case of a public street that the part
projecting is beyond the regular line of public street and is greater
portion or material portion of such building or external portion
to the main building, shall be removed. It has to intimate its
intention to remove the structure. In case any portion of such
material part has been taken down, burned down or has fallen
B
down, the Corporation may require by notice such portion shall
be set back to. [Para 29][409-G-H; 410-A-D]
3.2 Section 305 is a wholesome provision with respect to
maintaining the regular line of a public street, existing or as
determined for the future, it clearly empowers the Corporation
c to intimate its intention to remove that part of the structure
projecting beyond the regular line of public street under section
305. The primary statutory mandate is on Corporation to act for
removal. Obviously, its power to remove is apparent from plain
language otherwise the provision will be of no utility. The point
D when the notice can be issued is clearly culled out in section 305.
In the case of clause (a) when the projecting part is external to
the main building such as verandah, step etc. then notice can be
issued at any time and two points of happening of exigencies are
provided separately in clause (b) : first, whenever projecting part
is not an external structure but is a greater portion of such building
E and it projects beyond the regular line of public street and second
exigency provided in clause (b) has to be read as "whenever any
material portion of such projecting part has been taken down or
burned down or has fallen down". [Para 30][410-E-H]
3.3 Even in clause (b) of section 305, 'removal' is
F contemplated and is not confined to a case under clause (a). The
Legislature has used two expressions : "whenever greater portion
of such building" and secondly "whenever any material portion
of projecting part has been taken down or burned down or has
fallen down", which means that clause (b) clearly fixes the time
G for action that 'whenever' projecting part of greater portion of
such building is projecting beyond the regular line of public street,
removal can be made or 'whenever' material portion of 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. The removal is contemplated even in the latter exigency
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 379
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
of clause (b) when material portion of such part has been taken A
down, burned down or fallen down, still some portion other than
'material portion' projecting in line may require removal which
has not been taken down, fallen down or burned down. It is not
that the expression that entire building projecting in regular line
of public street has been taken down, burned down or fallen down.
B
The expression in the latter part of clause (b) is taken down,
fallen down or burned down is not related to the entire projecting
part. Thus the earlier part "whenever greater portion of such
building" is projecting beyond the regular line of public street,
has to be read with respect to a building which has not fallen
down, taken down or burned down. The word 'or' in section c
305(l)(b) used between greater portion of such building or
whenever any material portion of such building has to be read
disjunctively. Nonetheless 'removal' is contemplated in all the
exigencies. In case it has been taken down, burned down or fallen
down, it may require the material portion to be set back and
D
remaining portion can be removed in the latter exigency of clause
(b) itself. A notice can be issued by the Corporation for removal
of the existing structure also. The opening part of section 305(1)
and its latter part after clause (b) make it abundantly clear that a
building or a part of the portion which projects into the periphery
of regular line of public street, can be removed. The interpretation E
suggested on behalf of the appellants that in case the building
has been taken down, burned down or fallen down, only in that
exigency action can be taken under section 305(b) and not
otherwise, would render the provision contained in section 305
and the provision as to public street in the development plan
otiose. Where an adjudicatory process is involved, person can
F
show sufficient cause why the building or work shall not be
removed, altered or pulled down but in the cases falling within
the purview of section 305, there is no such adjudicatory process
or discretion provided. [Paras 31, 32 and 34][411-A-H; 412-C)
3.4. Section 309 deals with the provisions regarding G
building unfit for human habitation. In that eventuality certain
procedure is specified. There is absolutely no ground to accept
the submission that the procedure prescribed under section 309
or the provisions thereof should guide the interpretation of
H
380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A section 305 and for similar reason the provisions contained in
sections 310 and 313 relating to dangerous building and removal
of building material from any places in certain cases which may
be considered harming or breeding places for riot or other source
of danger or nuisance to the occupier, then a notice shall be
required to be issued; and on failure the Commissioner is
B
empowered to remove; whereas the provisions of section 305
cast a mandate upon the Corporation to remove whatever is
projecting beyond the regular line of public street. The
intendment of these provisions is different, hence render no help
or guide so as to interpret the provisions of section 305. In fact
C when all the provisions are considered, the interpretation of
section 305 is fortified that it primarily mandates the Corporation
to take action of removal on satisfaction of exigencies specified
therein. [Para 35][412-F-H; 413-AJ
In re : Possession/deemed to be part of public street and vesting
D under section 305 of the Act of 1956:
4. Coming to question as to when vesting takes place. As
soon as the building or the projecting part has been removed or
when the Corporation has issued a notice when such re-building
shall be set back or to the front line, the line added by such action
E by setting back or removal, shall henceforth without any further
formalities, be deemed to be a part of public street and shall vest
in the Corporation. Vesting does not depend upon the volition of
the owner. Otherwise no public street can ever be brought in
regular line. The Corporation has the power to remove. As
deemed vesting is provided under Section 305, as such there is
F no requirement of separate provision for taking possession. For
removal there is specific provision and adequate safeguards have
been provided for fixing the regular line of a public street while
preparing the development plan or the town development
scheme, as the case may be. In removal of the building under
G section 305 of the Act of 1956, it is implicit that once removal is
made, vesting follows and possession stands transferred as part
of public street. When considering the deeming fiction in section
305 and vesting provision, de jure and de-facto possession
automatically vested in the Corporation on the happening of the
exigencies as provided in section 305. [Paras 36, 38)(413-B-D;
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 381
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
415-G, HJ A
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari Ram 2013 (2) SCR 301 :
(2013) 4 sec 280 - Distinguished.
Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors.
(1953) SCR 533; Pw~jab Land Development &
Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, B
Labour Court, Chandif{arh 1990 (3) SCR 111 : (1990)
3 SCC 682; Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan
Aggarwal (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 323; Padma Sundara
Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T. N. & Ors. 2002 (2)
SCR 383 : (2002) 3 SCC 533 - referred to. c
Jones v. Wrotham Park Settled Estates & Anr. (1979) 1
AER 286; Inca Europe Ltd & Ors. v. First Choice
Distribution (a firm) & Ors. (2000) 2 AER 109 -
referred to.
In re : Section 78/79 of the Act of 1956 and Section 56 of the Act D
of 1973 :
5.1 Private street means a street which is not a public street.
Public street means any street over which the public have a right
of way or which have been leveled, paved, metalled, asphatled,
channeled, sewered or repaired out of municipal or other public E
funds or which under the provisions of the Act, becomes a public
street as provided in section 330 and which includes the roadway
over any public bridge or causeway, footway attached to any such
street, public bridge or causeway; and the drains attached thereto.
Street means any road, footway, square, court alley or passage,
F
accessible whether permanently or temporarily to the public.
Public street and private street are separately defined - though
the public street may also include any street provided in section
5(49) but every street is not a public street and private street is
a street which is not a public street. Any street may be declared
to be public street under the provisions of section 330. In the G
exigencies as provided in sub-section (1) ;thereof and
Commissioner may also after inviting objections, declare a street
or part of the same to be public street, and an appeal is provided
against the decision. Under Section 305, the power is conferred
on the Municipal Corporation to remove building or any part of H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A the building beyond the regular line of a "public street"; whereas
the provisions contained in section 79(3) is with respect to a new
street or for widening or improving an existing street. There is
difference when there is a public street line, the special provision
contained in section 305 is attracted. The recourse to the
provisions of acquisition under sections 78 and 79 is clearly ousted
B
by the special provision contained in Section 305 of the Act of
1956. Being a special provision with respect to maintaining a
regular line of a public street which has been carved out by the
Legislature under section 305 of the Act of 1956, would prevail
upon the general provisions with respect to acquisition of land as
c provided in sections 78 and 79 thereof.[Para 49][424-C-H; 425-
A]
Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram AKarwal 2003 (1) SCR 634 :
(2003) 2 sec 577 - referred to.
"The Principles of Statutory Interpretation" by G.P.
D Singh, 13•h Edn. 2012, Chapter 2 - referred to.
5.2 Ji is apparent that the maxims Gener"li" speci"/ibus non
derogant and Generalibus speci"li" derogant have to be applied in
particular situations. If a particular provision is made on a certain
matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision. Even
E assuming that public street is also a street, considering the special
provisions contained in section 305, recourse can be had to the
provision without having adverting to the procedure prescribed
under sections 78 and 79 of the Act and the compensation in the
case of action is taken under section 305 is provided under
proviso to section 305 and section 306 read with section 387 to
F which the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have been
made applicable for determination. Section 387 provides for
procedure in case compensation determined under section 306
is not acceptable, dissatisfied claimants can have resort to section
387 which require determination of dispute by Panchayat/
G arbitration, and in case arbitration fails, parties can approach the
District Court which shall follow the procedure provided in Land
Acquisition Act, 1894. The provision of section 387 is very wide
and covers all the cases in which an agreement is not arrived at
with respect to compensation or damages which are under the
Act directed to be paid. Section 387 would cover the provisions
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 383
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
of compensation payable under sections 305 and 306 of the Act A
of 1956. Sections 305 and 306 use the expression 'reasonable
compensation has to be paid' which would mean, reasonable on
the principle acceptable in accordance with law.[Paras 50, 51)(427-
C, E-H; 428-A)
Venkateshwar Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh B
AIR 1966 SC 828 : 1966 SCR 172; C.lT. Patiala v.
Shahzada Nand & Sons AIR 1966 SC 1342 : 1966
SCR 379; State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramajibhai
Danabhai 1979 (3) SCR 788 : (1979) 3 SCC 347; State
of Bihar v. Yogendra Singh 1982 (3) SCR 332 : (1982)
1 SCC 664; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary C
and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh
Kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27 - referred to.
5.3 The submission raised by the appellants that for
acquisition of land, sections 78 and 79 should be resorted to for
the purposes mentioned in section 305 cannot be accepted for D
yet another reason, if the provision as to public street is made
dependent upon the acquisition of land, the very purpose behind
the provisions of section 305 would be frustrated as well as the
public interest, there is already a regular line of public street
fixed under development plan and is binding under section 19(5)
and section 25 of the Act of 1973. Various rights of ownership E
which ordinarily vest in an owner, are restricted by the regional
plan, development plan or the town development scheme, as the
case may be. User of the owner's land, property cannot be in
derogation to any of them. Development plan is binding upon the
Corporation and local authorities and all concerned including the F
owners. Though they can transfer the property but subject to
such restrictions which the property will carry with it. If the land
falls in a regular line of public street, no construction can be raised,
no projection can be made by owner whereas it can be removed
or set back, as the case may be. In case acquisition is resorted to
under sections 78 and 79, public street can never be widened G
and the entire purpose of preparation of Development Plan shall
stand defeated. [Para 52)[428-B-E)
In re : Development Plan and Town Planning Scheme :
6. Section 305 is a reasonable method of acquisition of the
property and it follows a detailed procedure for preparation of H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A development plan/master plan or a town improvement scheme,
as the case may be, which involves adjudicatory process and once
action is taken under section 305, reasonable compensation
follows, special procedure as prescribed, is a complete Code in
itself and even if a person is not satisfied, he can claim adjudication
under section 387 where the procedure of the Land Acquisition
B
Act, 1894 is applicable. Development plan has to be implemented
by the Corporation not only under the provisions of section 292
but also under the provisions of section 66(1)(y) of the Act of
1956 which mandates a duty upon the Corporation for fulfilling
any obligation imposed by the Act or under any other law for the
c time being in force. Thus Corporation while taking action, is simply
carrying out the mandate of sections 19(5), 25 and other
provisions of the Act of1973. Framing of the scheme under section
291 is precluded by virtue of the provisions of section 292, in
view of the existence of development plan which is final as to
D width of road or town development scheme, as the case may be.
Applying the rule of strict construction, the action is permissible
under the provisions of section 305 as the Corporation has
implemented the provisions of development plan, it is bound to
implement the development plan prepared after following the
exhaustive procedure consistent with the principles of natural
E justice, and is in the larger public interest.(Paras 57, 60 and
61)(432-A-C; 433-B-C, E; 436-G-H)
In re : Vires of sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956 :
7.1 The provision of section 305 when it deals with the
public streets and removal of building falling in regular line is a
F wholesome one and being a special provision, based on
classification made for the purpose of section 305 as to public
street cannot be said to be suffering from vice or discrimination
and violative of Article 14. The procedure under section 305 of
the Act of 1956 cannot be said to be onerous or harsh and it
a cannot be tested on the anvil of provisions of section 78/79 of the
Act of 1956 or section 56 of the Act of 1973. [Para 64)[444-A-BJ
Nagpur Improvement Trust & Am: v. Vithal Rao & Ors.
1973 (3) SCR 39 : (1973) 1 sec 500 - held
inapplicable.
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 385
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
7.2 Article 300A enables the State to put restrictions on A
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. Thus, it cannot be said B
that illusory compensation is provided under section 306 read
with section 387. [Para 67)(448-F-G]
Rajiv Sarin & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. 2011
(9) SCR 1012 : (2011) 8 SCC 708 - distinguished
7.3 The provisions of sections 305 and 306 cannot be read c
in isolation. It has to be read with wholesome provision of section
387 and what is contemplated under section 387 has to be taken
to be the principle of reasonable compensation even in sections
305 and 306. Monetary value has to be worked out and it can be
balanced with FAR in appropriate cases which is quite reasonable
method of arriving at compensation. The principles laid down in D
sections 305, 306 and 387 are quite reasonable. 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 ofland in public street is payable under
section 306(3) of the Act. There is no ground to read down the E
provisions. How the compensation is to be worked out at the
appropriate stage, is the outcome of the authorities concerned
and the job of the arbitrator/District Court, as the case may be.
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 F
at the appropriate stage of determination of compensation. [Paras
70, 73)(450-F-G; 460-D-G)
P. Vajravelu Mudaliar v. The Special Deputy Collector,
West Madras AIR 1965 SC 1017 : 1965 SCR 614;
Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2015 (11) SCR G
179 : (2015) 10 SCC 241; The Municipal Corporation,
Indore v. K.N. Pa/sikaf'A.m 1969 SC 579 : 1969 SCR
13 - held inapplicable.
Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Ors. v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2015) 10 SCC 400 - referred to. H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 8. Law envisages speedy action without unreasonable delay
and that is what is expected of the concerned authorities, in respect
of the obligation imposed on them to be discharged. Due to this,
the provision cannot be struck down as arbitrary nor it can be
said to be confiscatory in nature. [Para 75][461-G)
B Yogendf'a Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016)
3 sec 183 - held inapplicable.
Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra
Phalak & Ors. 2013 SCR 259 : (2015) 14 SCC 327;
The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Lucknow v. Mis.
c Parson Tools & Plants, Kanpur (1975) 4 SCC 22;
Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Vemuganti Ramakrishan
Rao & Ors. 2013 (9) SCR 658 : (2013) 8 SCC 789;
Ajjal Imam v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2011 (5) SCR 771
: (2011) 5 SCC 729; Bhavnaf{ar University v. Palitana
Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. 2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 :
D
(2003) 2 SCC 111; Girnar Traders (3) v. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 (3) SCR 1 : (2011) 3 SCC
1; Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure
Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. 2007 (6) SCR
799 : (2007) 8 SCC 705; Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
E Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. 2005 (3) Suppl.
SCR 388 : (2005) 7 SCC 627; Suraj Mall Mohta &
Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri & Am: AIR 1954 SC 545
: 1955 SCR 448; K. T. Plan talion Pvt. Ltd. & Am: v.
State of Karnataka 2011 (13) SCR 636 : (2011) 9 SCC
1; l.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of T.N. 2007 (1)
F
SCR 706 : (2007) 2 SCC 1; Rustom Cava5jee Cooper
v. Union of India 1970 (3) SCR 530 : (1970) 1 SCC
248; Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad
& Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1973 (1) SCR 1 :
(1972) 1 sec 802 - referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
1969 SCR 13 held inapplicable Para 37
2013 (2) SCR 301 Distinguished Para 38
H (1975) 4 sec 22 referred to Para 39
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 387
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
(1953) SCR 533 referred to Para40 A
19~Q (3) SCR 111 referred to Para 40
(1992) Supp. 1 sec 323 referred to Para 40
2002 (2) SCR 383 referred to Para 40
20p (9) SCR 658 referred to Para 42 B
20Q~ (1) SCR 634 referred to Para 46
1966 SCR 172 referred to Para 50
1966 SCR 379 referred to Para 50
1979 (3) SCR 788 referred to Para 50
c
1982 (3) SCR 332 referred to Para 50
(1984) 4 sec 27 referred to Para 50
2on (5) SCR 771 referred to Para 54
D
2002 (4) Suppl. SCR 517 referred to Para 55
2015 (11) SCR 179 held inapplicable Para 56
2011 (3) SCR 1 referred to Para 57
20Q7 (6) SCR 799 referred to Para 61
E
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 388 referred to Para 61
c2015) 10 sec 400 referred to Para 63
1955 SCR 448 referred to Para 64
1973 (3) SCR 39 held inapplicable Para 65 F
1965 SCR 614 held inapplicable Para 66
2011 (13) SCR 636 referred to Para 67
20Q7 (1) SCR 706 referred to Para 67
2011 (9) SCR 1012 distinguished Para 68 G
1970 (3) SCR 530 referred to Para 69
1973 (1) SCR 1 referred to. Para 71
(2916) 3 sec 183 held inapplicable Para 72
H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 2013 SCR 259 referred to Para 75
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11307
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2010 of the High Court
B of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Writ Appeal No. 397 of 2010.
WITH
C.A. Nos. 11308, 11309-11316, 11317-11318, 11319-11324, 11325,
11326, 11327-11330, 11331, 11332, 11333, 11334, 11335, 11336of2016.
C Tushar Mehta, ASG, Dhruv Mehta, Sushil Kumar Jain, Rakesh
Dwivedi, Sr. Advs., Gaurav Agrawal, Siddharth Gupta, Abhikalp Pratap
Singh, Abhishek Rai, Ms. Anupama D., B. K. Satija, Puneet Jain,
Mrs. Christi Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Pankaj Sharma, Manu Maheshwari,
Ms. Pratibha Jain, Apoorv Shukla, Kuna] Cheema, Yogesh Ahirrao,
D Neelmani Pant, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Sanjay Kapur, Anmol Chandan,
Ms. Priyanka Das, Akshay Girish Ringe, Manan Popli, Manoj Munshi,
A. V. Rangam, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, D. V. Raghu Vamsy, Ms. Shivali
Chaudhary, Sagar Suri, C. D. Singh,Anil K. Shanna, Praveen Chaturvedi,
Mishra Saurabh, Sunny Chaudhary, Ankit Kr. Lal, Ms. Pragati Neekhra,
Akshay Chandra, Advs., with them for the appearing parties.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 9.5.2016
F passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur and as against
order dated 30.9.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore thereby affirming the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
3. The matter arises out of Bhopal Municipal Corporation and
G Indore Municipal Corporation. The action taken by the Municipal
Corporations of Bhopal and Indore under section 305 of Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of
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 of2013. Aggrieved thereby, writ appeals were filed by Bhopal
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 389
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA,. J.]
Municipal Corporation which have been allowed by the impugned A
judgment and order dated 9.5.2016 by a Division Bench of the High
Court of M.P.
4. With respect to Bhopal the facts are being narrated from the
matter in-between A.K. Pali & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. The State
Government through Municipal Corporation, Bhopal as a nodal agency B
decided to develop Bus Rapid Transit System Corridor (for short 'BRTS
corridor') on the stretch of around 8 kms. As per Bhopal Development
Plan, 2005 which was notified in the year 1995, the proposed width of
the road is 66 mtrs. Initially, the writ petitions were filed by the appellants
before a Single Bench in the year 2014 questioning the action initiated C
by the Municipal Corporation on the ground that such an action was
impermissible under the provisions of section 305 of the Act of 1956. At
that time the width of the road was 54 mtrs. The appellants' main
submission was that they had obtained the permission from the Municipal
Corporation so as to raise construction. For acquisition of the land, the
provisions contained in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency D
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of2013 ')ought to have been resorted
to.
5. Under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission,
the Central Government had sanctioned the scheme called BRTS corridor E
for improvement of public transport system at Bhopal in order to avoid
hazardous traffic. The Central Sanctioning & Monitoring Committee
was constituted by the Ministry of Urban Development which had
sanctioned a sum ofRs.357.20 crores for implementation of said scheme.
After due sanction by the Committee, NHAI entered into an agreement
with Municipal Corporation, Bhopal on 22.9.2009 and handed over F
particular part ofland to it for the purpose ofBRTS corridor.For betterment
of public transport system 225 low floor buses were also sanctioned by
Sanctioning and Monitoring Committee of the Central Government. For
BRTS corridor survey was undertaken by the Expert Committee of the
Central Government namely Urban Mass Transit Council of Bhopal City. G
Plan was duly approved by the State Government and the routes were
notified as per Plan by the State Transport Authority. Presently only
1.25 lakh passengers are getting the services oflow floor buses. It is not
in dispute that most of the BRTS corridor has been constructed and the
route from Misrod to Bairagarh is under operation. Buses are plying
H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A continuously. The appellants are land-holders in-between Misroad to
Ampree Chouraha. The Master Plan was prepared under the provisions
ofM.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 (Town & Country
Planning Act) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1973 '. The
Development Plan/Master Plan was prepared as per the provisions of
section 18 after inviting objections, suggestions. None of the appellants
B
had raised objection when the development plan was prepared. It was
finalized and published as per provisions contained in section 19(4).
6. The development permission was granted by the competent
authority under the Act of 1973 as per the provisions contained in section
13(1)(b) and Rule 21(1) framed under the Bhopal Vikas Adhiniyam,
c 1984 since repealed with effect from April, 2012. The appellants have
raised the construction of their building as perthe conditions mentioned
in the map sanctioned by the authority under the Act of 1973. They
were required to keep the land for widening of road in question.
Accordingly, the landowners submitted their lay-out leaving requisite land
D from the centre of the road for widening of road. On that basis
Municipal Corporation had granted permission to appellants. They were
aware of the proposed width of the road.
7. The appellants at the stage of the final hearing of writ appeals
before the High Court filed fresh writ petition/amended writ petition for
E questioning the vires of the provisions contained in sections 305 and 306
of the Act of 1956. It was averred that there is no provision under the
Act of 1973 of vesting ofland on publication of Master Plan/Development
Plan, particularly the land belonging to private landowners. The acquisition
has to be made under the provisions contained in sections 8, 11and16 of
the Act of 2013. State Government has no power to reduce quantum of
F compensation prescribed under the Act of2013. Sections 305 and 306
of the Act of 1956 are unconstitutional as they provide automatic vesting
of land without payment of reasonable compensation. The Act of 1956
fails to provide appropriate compensation equivalent to that offered under
the Act of 2013. The provisions contained in sections 305 and 306 are
G violative of Article 14. The provisions contained in sections 305 and 306
have become redundant due to the provisions contained in the Act of
2013. It was submitted that the Corporation is required to acquire the
land for widening the streets as per the provisions contained in sections
78 and 79 of the Act of 1956. Thus recourse to section 305 of the Act of
1956 is not permissible for divesting the owner of his right to ownership
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 391
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
and that too without payment of compensation. Adoption of onerous and A
oppressive provision would be illegal and arbitrary. The provision
contained in section 305 is more onerous and harsh as compared to the
procedure laid down under section 56 of the Act of 1973. It was also
submitted that in some of nearby areas the land is being acquired for link
road under the Act of 2013 whereas appellants are being discriminated B
with. Two different processes of acquisition under different Acts cannot
be resorted to. It was also submitted that the provision contained in
section 306 fails to provide rational, reasonable principle for determination
of compensation for deprivation of property of landowner. Right to
property is recognized under section 300A and delayed payment of
compensation leads to deprivation of property without reasonable process. C
Section 306 does not provide as to the time period within which
compensation to be paid. Consequently, same is violative of Articles 14,
19 and 300A of the Constitution. It was submitted that the provisions
contained in section 306 be read down by incorporating the provisions of
the Act of2013 in the light of principles enshrined therein while correlating D
it with the provisions of section 387 of the Act of 1956. It was also
submitted that within the ken of section 305 of the Act of 1956,
Corporation has no right to enter and remove any part of the structure
falling within building line.
8. In the cases arising from the Indore Bench vi res of the provisions
of sections 305 and 306 of Act of 1956 have not been questioned. In E
Indore also BRTS corridor is being undertaken at the cost of Rs.868
crores. Same is being executed through the nodal agency of Indore
Development Authority. State Government has granted approval to the
project as a Town Development Scheme under section 49(ix) of the Act
of 1973. As per appellants BRTS corridor is being undertaken on a portion F
of Agra Bombay Road (AB Road). It was described as Major City
Road in the development plan, 1991 which was prepared and notified in
the year 1975. At the relevant time AB Road/MR-I was proposed to be
as 40-50 mtrs. At the same time it was provided that for future the width
of said road would be 60 to 75 meters. It was in confonnity with the
Master Plan of 1991; in the Master Plan of2021 the width of the road is G
kept 60 meters. On 26.5.2007 a notice was issued for demolition of
certain structure for the purpose of widening ofroad. On 1.1.2008 Master
"Plan, 2021 had been notified in which AB Road has been proposed as
60 to 75 meters. It was also pointed out that now a separate bye-pass
H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A road has been taken out for AB Road. Thus the road in question forms
part of the Major City Road that is MR-I, width of which has to be 60
meters. Most of the corridor has been constructed except in some portion
of the appellants. Development plan is binding upon the authorities as
well as the Corporation. As such, action has been rightly taken under
section 305 of the Act of 1956, Se.ctions 305 and 306 provide for
B
reasonable compensation and when it is not accepted, recourse can be
had to the provisions contained in section 387 of the Act of 1956 which
provides for determination of compensation by the arbitrators/court on
the basis of procedure laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As
soon as Master Plan/Development Plan is finalized and published there
c is restriction upon the owner to raise any construction in contravention
of the plan and the Corporation is given the right to remove any structure
which is falling within the line of the existing public street or to be
constructed in future. The provisions subserve the public interest and
widening of the road is necessary for development of rapid transport
D system. The procedure prescribed with respect to public street is
contained in section 305. Same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary in
any manner as reasonable compensation is offered which may include
FAR in appropriate cases and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
are also applicable as provided under section 387. Thus the provisions
·cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the
E Constitution oflndia. The action taken falls within the purview of section
305 of the Act of 1956.
9. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted by learned senior
counsel that the provisions contained in section 305 of the Act of 1956
are repugnant to the provisions contained in the Act of2013. Compensation
F is not offered before taking possession. The provisions contained in section
305 of the Act of 1956 is violative of the protection conferred under
Articles 14, I 9, 2 I and 300A of the Constitution and repugnant to the
provisions contained in section 56 of the Act of I973. It was also
contended that on proper interpretation of the provisions contained in
section 305, the Corporation has no right to remove greater portion of
G the building or material portion of the projecting part unless it has been
taken down or burned down or has fallen down. On notice, it is to be
voluntarily removed by the owner thereof. The Corporation can only
remove the projecting part which is external to the main building as
verandah, step or some other structure. TI1e acquisition proceedings have
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 393
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.)
to be necessarily resorted to under the provisions contained in sections A
78 and 79 of the Act of 1956. Corporation has no right to enter forcibly
to remove the structure. It was also submitted that without preparation
of a town development scheme as envisaged under section 49 read with
section 50 of the Act of 1973, it is not permissible to carry out the
provisions contained in the development plan.
B
l 0. On the other hand it was submitted by learned senior counsel
for the respondents that the action taken is in accordance with the
development plan which is binding. The provisions under section 305
cannot be said to be ultra vires. The same provide for reasonable
compensation. On proper interpretation of section 305 of the Act of
1956 the action of the Corporation is within its ken. It is not necessary C
to acquire the land. Corporation has power to remove structure which
projects beyond the regular line of public street. The maxims Generalia
specialibus non derogant and Generalibus specialia derogant have
been pressed into service to contend that if a special provision is made
on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision. D
The scheme of the Act of 1973 has been pointed out so as to explain the
procedure how regional plan, development plan and town development
schemes are prepared. It is not necessary to have recourse to section
56 of the Act of 1973 or sections 78 and 79 of the Act of 1956 for
acquisition ofland.
E
11. Before dilating upon the rival contentions it is necessary to ·
take note of the various statutory provisions.
In re : Provisions of the Act of 1956 :
12. Section 5(45) of the Act of 1956 defines 'private street'; section
5(49) defines 'public street'; section 5(55) defines 'street'. The provisions F
contained in sections 5( 45), 5( 49) and 5(55) are extracted below:
"Section 5(45) "private street" means a street which is not a
public street;
Section 5( 49) "public street" means any street -
G
(a) Over which the public have a right of way; or
(b) Which have been heretofore leveled, paved, metalled,
asphalted, channeled, sewered or repaired out of municipal or
other public funds; or
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A ( c) Which under the provisions of this Act becomes a public
street;
And includes -
(i) The roadway over any public bridge or causeway;
B (ii) The footway attached to any such street;
(iii) Public bridge or causeway, and the drains attached to any
such street, public bridge or causeway;
Section 5(55) "street" means any road, foot-way, square, court
alley or passage, accessible, whether permanently or temporarily
c to the public, whether a thoroughfare or not;
and shall include every vacant space, notwithstanding that it may
be private property and partly or wholly obstructed by any gate,
post chain or other barrier, if houses, shops or other buildings
about thereon, and if it is used by any persons as means of access
D to or from any public place or thoroughfare, whether such persons
be occupiers of such buildings or not;
but shall not include any part of such space which the occupier of
any such building has a right at all hours to prevent all other persons
from using as aforesaid;
E and shall include also the drains on either side and the land whether
covered or not by any pavement, verandah or other erection, which
lies on either side of the roadway up to the boundaries of the
adjacent property, whether that property be private property or
property reserved by Government or by the Corporation for any
purpose other than a street;"
F
Section 330 of the Act of 1956 deals with conversion of streets
into public streets. Section 330(1) requires the Commissioner to declare
the same to be public streets in exigencies specified therein. Section
330(2) empowers the Commissioner to declare street or part of a street
not maintained by Corporation to declare the same to be a public street.
G The decision has to be taken after inviting objections and appeal can be
preferred against such a decision as provided in section 330(3 ). Section
330 is extracted hereunder:
"330. Power to declare streets, when metalled, etc. public
streets - ( 1) When any street has been levelled, metalled, tarred
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 395
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
or asphalted, paved, inade good, lighted, drained, chanelled and A
flagged to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, he shall, if so
required by the persons liable for the greater part of the expenditure
on such street by notice put up in any part of such street, declare
the same to be a public street. The said street shall thereupon
become a public street.
B
(2) The Commissioner may, at any time by a notice exhibited in
any street or part of a street not maintained by the Corporation,
give intimation of his intention to declare the same a public street,
and, unless within one month next after such notice is first exhibited
the owner or the majority of owners of such street or such part of
street, lodges or lodge objections thereto with the Corporation, C
the Commissioner may by a notice exhibited in such street or
part, declare the same to be a public street vested in the
Corporation.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a notice under sub-section (2) may
appeal within thirty days from the date of notice is first exhibited, D
to the District Court who shall give a reasonable opportunity of
being heard to the appellant and the Corporation.
(4) The provisions of Parts II and III of the Indian Limitation Act,
1908 relating to appeals shall apply to every appeal preferred under
this section."
E
13. Section 78 deals with acquisition of immovable property or
easement by agreement. Section 79 deals with the procedure when it is
not possible to acquire property or easement by agreement. A Corporation
has the power under Part V with respect to public health, safety and
convenience. Chapter Xlll deals with public convenience, Chapter XIV
- conservancy, Chapter XV -sanitary provisions, Chapter XVI - water- F
supply, Chapter XVII - general provisions with reference to drainage,
water supply and water and other mains, Chapter XVIII with public
health and safety, Chapter XIX with markets and slaughter places,
Chapter XX - food, drink, drug and dangerous articles, Chapter XXI -
restraint of infection; Chapter XXII-disposal of the dead. Part VI relates G
to lands, buildings and streets. Chapter XXlll deals with town planning.
Section 291 mandates for town planning scheme. Section 292 contains
the restriction on Corporation's power to undertake town planning scheme
when any scheme under the Town Improvement Act has been formed
for the area in question. Colonisation is dealt with in Chapter XXIII-A.
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9 S.C.R.
A Chapter XXN deals with building control under the provisions of section
293. There is restriction on construction without permission. Under section
295 Commissioner has the power to refuse erection or re-erection of
buildings. Section 296 contains the provision as to grounds on which site
of proposed building may be disapproved. Section 297 deals with the
grounds on which permission to erect or re-erect building may be refused.
B
Section 299 confers the power upon the Commissioner to direct
modification of a sanctioned plan of a building before its completion.
Under section 299A State Government has the power to cancel or revise
permission for construction of a building. Section 300 mandates for lapse
of sanction after one year from the date of such sanction. Section 302
c confers power upon the Commissioner to stop construction unlawfully
commenced. Section 303 confers power upon the Commissioner to direct
removal of person from a building in which works are urilawfully carried
on or which are unlawfully occupied. Erection and use of temporary
building is to be approved by Commissioner as provided under section
D 304. Under Section 305, Corporation has the power to regulate line of
buildings. Section 306 deals with compensation to be paid. With respect
to dangerous and insanitary buildings, the Corporation has the power
from sections 309 to 316. With respect to public streets, Corporation has
the power under Chapter XXVI contained in sections 317 to 331. Section
322 prohibits all obstruction in streets. Section 323 ensures streets not to
E be opened or broken up. Section 318 provides for prohibition of projection
upon streets. It is apparent that ample and widest power has been
conferred under the Act of 1956 upon the local authorities in such matters
in public interest.
In re : Provisions of the Act of 1973 :
F 14. Provisions contained in the Act of 1973 are also required to be
taki;:n note of along with the provisions contained in the Town
Improvement Act which has a reference in the Act of 1956 in section
292 thereof.
Under the Act of 1973, section 2(g) defines development plan
G includes a zoning plan. It defines 'local authority' to mean a Municipal
Corporation constituted by the Act of 1956, Municipal Council or Nagar
Panchayat constituted by or under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961
etc. Planning area, regional plan, town development scheme and zone
have been defined in section 2(o), 2{q), 2(u) and 2(w) of Act of 1973
H respectively. Same are extracted hereunder :
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 397
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
"Section 2(0) "planning area" means any area declared to be A
a planning area under this Act and [non-planning area shall be
construed accordingly];
Section 2(g) "regional plan" means a plan for the region
prepared under this Act, and approved by the State Government;
Section 2(u) "town development scheme" means a scheme B
prepared for the implementation of the provisions of a development
plan by the Town and Country Development Authority and includes
"scheme";
Section 2(w) "zone" means any section of a planning area
for which, under the development plan, a detailed zoning plan is C
prepared;"
15. Regional planning is dealt with in Chapter III. State Government
has the power to declare any area in the State to be a region for the
purposes of the Act. Director is empowered to prepare regional plan
under section 5. Section 7 provides for contents thereof. Section 8 D
provides for preparation of the same. Under section 8, objections and
suggestions are invited then Director has to consider them as per section
· 8(2), afford a reasonable opportunity to all the persons affected thereby
of being heard then the State Government may finalise the regional plan
with or without modifications. Proviso to sub-section (2) of section 9 E
mandates that in case the State Government modifies the draft regional
plan in that case State Government has to publish the same in the Gazette,
invite objections and suggestions on the modifications proposed and after
giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, has to finalise it. Section
10 of the Act of 1973 provides that as soon as draft plan is published, no
person, authority or department of the Government or any other person F
shall change the use of land for any purpose other than agriculture or
carry out any development in respect of any land contrary to the provisions
of the draft plan, without the prior approval of the Director or an officer
not below the rank of a Deputy Director. Section 10(3) provides that in
case any work is carried out in contravention of the provisions of the G
section, the Corporation or other local authority or the Collector in areas
outside such local areas of the authority may cause such work to be
removed or demolished at the cost of the defaulter which shall be
recovered from him as an arrear ofland revenue. Removal or demolition
is contemplated after notice and hearing. Section 11 of the Act of 1973
H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A deals with exclusion from claims of compensation in certain cases. If
compensation in respect of such demolition has already been paid under
any other law, the owner shall not be entitled to any compensation by
reason of the restrictions under the Act.
16. Chapter IV of the Act of 1973 deals with the planning areas
B and fresh development plan. As per section 13 thereof, State Government
has to issue a notification for constituting planning areas and it can alter,
amalgamate or divide the area. Section 13(3) provides that once notification
under section 13( 1) of the Act of 1973 has been issued a Corporation
under the Act of 1956 and other local authorities, as the case may be
under the respective Acts ceases to exercise the powers, perform the
c functions and discharge duties which the State Government or the Director
is competent to exercise, perform and discharge under the Act. Section
13 is extracted hereunder :
"Section 13. Planning area. - (I) The State Government
may, by notification, constitute planning areas for the purposes of
D this Act and define the limits thereof.
(2) The State Government may, by notification,
(a) alter the limits of the planning area so as to include therein
or exclude therefrom such area as may be specified in the
E notification;
(b) amalgamate two or more planning areas so as to
constitute one planning area;
(c) divide any planning area into two or more planning areas;
(d) declare that the whole or part of the area constituting
F
the planning area shall cease to be a planning area or part thereof.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Madhya Pradesh
Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (No. 23 of 1956), the Madhya
Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961(No.37of1961) or the Madhya
Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (No.I of 1994), the
G Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council or the Nagar Panchayat
or a Panchayat, as the case may be, shall, in relation to the planning
areas, from the date of the notification issued under sub-section
(I), cease to exercise the powers, perform the functions and
discharge the duties which the State Government or the Director
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 399
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
is competent to exercise, perform and discharge under this Act." A
17. Section 14 deals with preparation of development plan. Section
15 deals with the preparation of existing land use maps and once the
existing land use map has been published under section 15, section 16
puts restriction upon the user of the land for any purpose other than that
indicated without permission in writing of the Director and no local B
authority notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, has the
power to grant permission for change in the use of land otherwise than
as indicated in the existing land use map without the permission in writing
of the Director.
18. Section 17 deals with the contents of the development plan. c
Section 18 deals with the publication of draft development plan prepared
under section 14 and objections thereto and suggestions in writing have
to be invited within 30 days then the Committee under section 17A(l)
has to consider the objections and suggestions and after giving reasonable
opportunity to all persons affected thereby, of being heard, suggest such
modifications in the draft development plan as it may consider necessary D
then it has to be submitted to the Director who in turn, within 30 days
has to submit the same to the State Government. Section 19 deals with
the sanction of the development plan. State Government under section
19( 1) may either approve the development plan or may approve it with
such modifications as it may consider necessary or may return it to the E
Director to modify the same in accordance with such directions as may
be deemed appropriate. In case the State Government wants to notify
the development plan with modifications, objections and suggestions
thereto have to be invited afresh within 30 days from the date of
publication of notice in writing as mandated by section 19(2) and after
giving hearing to the persons and considering objections and suggestions F
the State Government may confirm the modification in the development
plan as provided in section 19(3). As per section 19(4) development plan
has to be published in the Gazette. As per section 19(5), development
plan shall come into operation from the date of publication of the notice
in the Gazette and as from such date shall be binding on all Development G
Authorities and local authorities functioning in the planning area. Sections
18 and 19 are extracted hereunder :
"18. Publication of draft development plan. - ( 1) The Director
shall publish the draft development plan prepared under Section
14 in such manner as may be prescribed together with a notice of H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A the preparation of the draft development plan and the place or the
places where the copies may be inspected, inviting objections and
suggestions in writing from any person with respect thereto, within
thirty days from the date of communication of such notice, such
notice shall specify in regard to the draft development plan, the
following particulars, namely,
B
(i) the existing land use maps;
(i-a) the natural hazard prone areas with the description ofnatural
hazards;
(ii) a narrative report, supported by maps and charts, explaining
c the provisions of the draft development plan;
(iii) the phasing of implementation of the draft development plan
as suggested by the Director;
(iv) the provisions for enforcing the draft development plan and
stating the manner in which permission for development may be
obtained;
D
(v) approximate cost of land acquisition for public purposes and
the cost of works involved in the implementation of the plan.
(2) The committee constituted under sub-section (I) of Section
17-A shall not later than ninety days after the publication of the
E notice under sub-section (I), consider all the objections and
suggestions as may be received within the period specified in the
notice under sub-section (I) and shall, after giving reasonable
opportunity to all persons affected thereby of being heard, suggest
such modifications in the draft development plan as it may consider
necessary, and submit, not later than six months after the
F publication of the draft development plan, the plan as so modified,
to the Director together with all connected documents plans, maps
and charts.
(3) The Director shall, within 30 days of the receipt of the plan
and other documents from the committee submit all the documents
G and plans so received alongwith his comments, to the State
Government.
19. Sanction of development plans.- (I) As soon as may be
after the submission of the development plan under Section 18
the State Government may either approve the development plan
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 401
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
or may approve, it with such modifications as it may consider A
necessary or may return it to the Director to modify the same or
to prepare a fresh plan in accordance with such directions as the
State Government may deem appropriate.
(2) Where the State Government approves the development plan
with modifications, the State Government shall, by a notice B
published in the Gazette, invite objections and suggestions in
respect of such modifications within a period of not less than
thirty days from the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette.
(3) After considering objections and suggestions and after giving
a hearing to the persons desirous of being heard, the State c
Government may confirm the modification in the development
plan.
(4)The State Government shall publish a public notice in the Gazette
and in such other manner as may be prescribed of the approval of
the development plan approved under the foregoing provisions D
and the place or places where the copies of the approved
development plan may be inspected.
(5) The development plan shall come into operation from the
date of publication of the said notice in the Gazette under
sub-section (4) and as from such date shall be binding 011 all E
Development Authorities constituted under this Act and all
local authorities functioning with the planning area."
(emphasis added)
19. Section 25 of the Act of 1973 lays down that once
Development Plan comes into force the use and development of F
land shall conform to the provisions of the development plan. It
was also provided in section 25(2) that diversion of land shall be
subjectto the provisions of the Act of 1973. Section 25 is extracted
below:·
"25. Conformity with development plan -( 1) After the coming G
into force of the development plan, the use and development
of land shall conform to the provisio11s of the development
plan:
Provided that the Director may, at its discretion, permit the
continued use ofland for the purpose for which it was being used H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A at the time of the coming into operation of the development plan:
Provided further that such permission shall not be granted for
a period exceeding seven years from the date of coming into
operation of the development plan.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 172 of the
B Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (No.20of1959) every
permission to divert land granted under that section shall be subject
to the provisions of this Act." (emphasis added)
20. It is apparent that the development plan once prepared is binding
c upon the development authorities in the planning area as well as on the
Municipal Corporation and other local authorities as the case may be.
They cannot modify and permit the user in contravention thereof. In
other words, restriction is imposed upon the owners on enjoyment of the
property in violation of the development plan/regional plan, as the case
D may be.
21. Section 49 oftheActofl 973 deals with the town development
schemes. Same has to be prepared under the umbrella of the regional
plan and development plan. The town development scheme is prepared
by the Town & Country Development Authority established under the
E provisions of section 38. The same shall be a body corporate under the
provisions of section 39 and its constitution is provided in section 40.
Section 49 of the Act of 1973 is extracted hereunder:
"49. Town Development Schemes.- A town development
scheme may make provision for any of the following matters,
F (i) acquisition, development and sale or leasing of land for the
purpose of town expansion;
(ii) acquisition, relaying out of, rebuilding, or relocating areas which
have been badly laid out or which has developed or degenerated
into a slum;
G
(iii) acquisition and development ofland for public purposes such
as housing development, development of shopping centers, cultural
centers, administrative centers;
(iv) acquisition and development of areas for commercial and
industrial purposes;
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 403
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
(v) undertaking of such building or construction work as may be A
necessary to provide housing, shopping, commercial or other
facilities;
(vi) acquisition of land and its development for the purpose of
laying out or remodeling of road and street patterns;
(vii) acquisition and development ofland for playgrounds, parks, B
recreation centres and stadium;
(viii) reconstruction of plots for the purpose of buildings, roads,
drains, sewage lines and other similar amenities;
(ix) any other work of a nature such as would bring about C
environmental improvements which may be taken up by the
authority with the prior approval of the State Government."
22. Section 50 of the Act of 1973 provides for method of preparation
of town development schemes. The town development scheme may
deal with the town expansion, badly laid out areas or slums, acquisition D
and development of land for housing, shopping centres, cultural centres,
administrative centres, commercial and industrial purposes, remodelling
of road and street patterns, reconstruction of lands for building roads,
drains etc. Under section 50 draft plan has to be published, objections
have to be invited, heard and decided. Thereafter scheme is finalized,
same has to be published in the Gazette. Section 55 prov~des that the E
land needed for town development scheme shall be deemed to be a land
required for public purpose within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act.
Section 56 deals with acquisition of land for Town and Country
Development Authority. Within 3 years of preparation of town
development scheme under section 50, the authority may acquire the
F
land by agreement and in case that is not possible the State Government
at the request of the authority may proceed to acquire the land under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
The town development scheme has to be executed by the authority
within 3 years by acquiring the land in case it is necessary as per the G
provisions contained in section 56.
23. It is apparent from the provisions contained in the Act of 1973
the three different provisions for preparation ofregional plan, development
plan (master plan) and town development scheme. The regional plan is
prepared by the State Government. Development plan is prepared as
H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A per the provisions contained in Chapter IV, sections 13 to 19 and once
development plan has been finalized, it is binding on development
authorities as well as the Municipal Corporation, Municipal Council and
other local authorities functioning in the planning area. Town development
scheme can be framed by the development authorities a11d it may declare
its intention to do so with the prior approval of the State Government.
B
In re : Town Planning Scheme of the Act of 1956 :
24. Section 291 of the Act of 1956 enjoins upon the Municipal
Corporation to prepare town planning scheme and in case the scheme
has been sanctioned under the provisions of Town Improvement Act, it
c is provided by section 292 of the Act of 1956 that no town planning
scheme shall be made by the Corporation. Sections 291 and 292 of the
Act of 1956 are extracted hereunder :
"291. Town planning scheme.- (I) The Corporation may,
and if so required by the Government shall, within six months of
D the date of such requisition, direct the Commissioner to draw up a
town planning scheme, which may, among other things, provide
for the following matter, namely:-
(a) a direction that in any street, portion of a street or locality
specified in the scheme the elevation and construction of the
E frontage of all buildings thereafter erected or re-erected shall, in
respect of their architectural features, be such as may be fixed
for the locality;
(b) a direction that in any street, portion of a street or locality
specified in the scheme, there shall be allowed the construction
F only detached or semi-detached buildings or both, and that the
land appurtenant to each building shall be of an area not less than
that specified in the scheme;
(c) a direction that in any street, portion of a street or locality
specified in the scheme, the construction of more than a specified
number of houses on each acre of land shall not be allowed;
G
(d) a direction that in any street, portion of a street or locality
specified in the scheme, the construction of shops, warehouses,
factories, huts or buildings of a specified architectural character
or buildings designed for particular purpose shall not be allowed;
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 405
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
(e) a street line and a building line on either side or on both sides A
of any street existing or proposed;
(f) a standard plan, either for the division of land into building
sites, or forthe location of buildings within a building site;
(g) the amount ofland which shall be transferred to the Corporation
for public purposes and public streets by owners ofland on payment B
of compensation;
(h) the prohibition of building operations permanently or temporarily
when by reason of the situation or nature of the land, the erection
ofbuildings thereon would be likely to involve danger or injury to
health, or excessive expenditure of public money in the provision C
of roads, sewers, water supply or other public services;
(i) regulating in the interest of safety, the height and position of
proposed walls, fences or hedges near the comers or bends of
streets;
D
U) limiting the number or prescribing the sites of new roads
entering a highway maintained by the Government;
(k) regulating, in respect of the erection of any building intended
to be used for purposes of business or industry, the provision of
accommodation for loading, unloading or fuelling vehicles with a
E
view to the prevention of obstruction of traffic on any highway;
and
(I) a direction that in any street, portion of a street or locality
specified in the scheme, the use of land for any purposes even
though not involving the erection ofbuilding, shall not be inconsistent
with the provisions of this section with respect ofbuildings.
F
(2) When a scheme has been drawn up under the provisions of
sub-section (1), the Commissioner shall give public notice of the
scheme and shall therein announce a date not less than 30 days
from the date of such notice by which any person may submit to
the Commissioner in writing any objection or suggestion with regard G
to the scheme which he may wish to make.
(3) The Commissioner shall within fifteen days of the date
announced under the provisions of sub-section (2), forward to the
Mayor-in-Council the notice together with the objections or
H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A suggestions, if any, and his opinion therefor.
(4) The Mayor-in-Council, shall within fifteen days of the receipt
of the documents relating to the scheme, forward them to the
Corporation together with the opinion of the Commissioner and
any comments which the Mayor-in-Council may make.
B (5) The Corporation shall consider every objection or suggestion
with regard to the scheme and may modify the scheme in
consequence of any such objection or suggestion and shall then
forward such scheme as originally drawn up or as modified,
together with the documents mentioned in sub-section (4) to the
c Government which may sanction the scheme or sanction it with
such modification as it may think fit or may refuse to sanction it,
or may return it to the Corporation for reconsideration and re-
submission by a specified date.
(6) If the Corporation fails to submit a scheme within six months
D of being required to do so under sub-section (I) or fails to re-
submit a scheme by a specified date when required to do so under
sub-section ( 5), or re-submits a scheme which is not approved by
the Government, the Government may draw up a scheme which
shall be published within the limits of the Corporation together
with an intimation of the date by which any person may submit in
E writing to the Government any objection or suggestion which he
may wish to make. The Government may sanction such scheme
as originally published or modified in consequence of any such
objection or suggestion as the Government may think fit.
(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-
F sections if the Corporation in case of scheme initiated by it, decides
to drop the scheme it shall intimate the Government accordingly.
(8) The cost of such scheme, or such portion of the cost as the
Government may deem fit shall be paid from the Municipal Fund.
(9) When sanctioning a scheme the Government may impose the
G conditions for the submission of periodical reports on the progress
of the scheme to the Government, and for the inspection and
supervision of the scheme by the Government.
(I 0) No person shall erect or re-erect any building or take any
other action in contravention of any such scheme or of any rule or
bye law made under the provisions of this Act.
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 407
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
292. Restriction on Corporation's power to undertake town A
planning scheme - Notwithstanding anything contained in
section 291, no town planning scheme shall be made by the
Corporation for any area for which a scheme has been
sanctioned under the provisions of Town Improvement Act."
(emphasis added) B
It is apparent that section 292 of the Act of 1956 refers to Town
lmprovement Act which was in vogue in different areas of erstwhile
Madhya Pradesh which has ultimately consolidated the different Acts
into the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act of 1960').
c
25. The Act of 1960 provided for various improvement schemes
under section 30. Section 31 of the Act of 1960 dealt with types of
improvement schemes such as general improvement schemes, re-
building, re-housing, street, deferred street schemes and development
scheme. I 0 types of schemes were provided under section 31 . When
D
scheme was proposed, consideration of representation was also provided.
The State Government had the power to sanction, reject or return the
improvement scheme as provided in section 51. Jn case the State
Government sanctioned the scheme it was required to be notified under
section 52 of the Act of 1960. The Act of 1960 has ceased to be operative
in the areas, once the Act of 1973 has been made applicable by establishing E
the authorities under the provisions of sections 38 to 40. In our considered
view, the expression 'scheme' in section 292 has to be taken to mean
the regional plan, development plan and also to any scheme under section
49 framed under the Act of 1973. The provision is not confined to a
scheme prepared under ,sections 49 and 50 of the Act of 1973. There
cannot be two schemes for the same area. F
In re : Scope of power of Corporation under Section 305 :
26. Before takingthe question ofvires of the provisions contained
in sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956, we consider it appropriate to
deal with the submissions raised on behalf of the appellants with respect G
to its interpretation and ken of powers conferred upon the Municipal
Corporation. Section 305 of the Act of 1956 is extracted hereunder:
"305. Power to regulate line of buildings.- (I) If any
part of a building projects beyond the regular line of a public street,
either as existing or as determined for the future or beyond the
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A front of immediately adjoining buildings the Corporation may-
(a) ifthe projecting part is a verandah, step or some other structure
external to the main building, then at any time, or
(b) ifthe projecting part is not such external structure as aforesaid,
then whenever the greater portion of such building or whenever
B any material portion of such projecting part has been taken down
or burned down or has fallen down,
require by notice either that the part of some portion of the part
projecting beyond the regular line or beyond the front of the
immediate adjoining building, shall be removed, or that such building
c when being rebuilt shall be set back to or towards the said line or
front; and the portion of 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:
Provided that the Corporation shall make reasonable
compensation to the owner for any damage or loss he may sustain
D in consequence of his building or any part thereof being set back.
(2) The Corporation may, on such terms as it thinks fit, allow any
building to be set forward for the improvement of the line of the
street."
27. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that for the
E exigencies contemplated in clause (a) of sub-section (I) of section 305
when projecting part is external to the main building then notice can be
issued at any time for removal of projecting part such as verandah, step
or some other structure and in case projecting pa11 is as provided in
section 305(1 )(b) whenever projecting part is greater portion of such
F building or whenever any material portion of such projecting part has
been taken down or burned down or has fallen down then only notice
can be issued. No notice can be issued by the Corporation under the
provisions of section 305( I) for its removal. The word 'or' in clause (b)
in-between greater portion of such building and material portion is not
disjunctive. First part of clause (b) has to be read conjunctively with the
G latter part. Even if greater portion of such building and material portion
of such projecting part is read disjunctively, the words used taken down,
burned down, fallen down qualify both the exigencies provided in clause
(b). The word 'removal' used in section 305(1) has to be read for the
situation in clause (a) only. For the situation covered by clause (b) notice
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 409
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
is issued only after happening of the mentioned event and that at the A
same time, when building is proposed to be re-built, notice can be for
"setting back" of the building. It was also submitted that in a given situation
when greater or material portion of the building or projecting part has
fallen down but some portion of the building which is still projecting
beyond the building line, in that situation Corporation can legitimately B
ask the owner to remove the remaining projecting portion of the building.
It was also submitted that the latter part of section 305 empowers the
Corporation to issue a notice and require the owner to act in the manner
stated to remove or set back while re-building. The section does not
empower the Corporation to enter and take possession. Thus, Corporation
has no power to remove; enter or take possession of greater portion or C
material portion of the building. It was also submitted that vesting takes
place only after portion of the land is added to the public street by setting
back or removal. Till that exigency happens, property continues to be
that of the owner. Section 305 contemplates voluntary action on the part
of owner. There is conscious omission as to the power of the Corporation D
to remove or enter which cannot be supplied by the Court. Municipal
Authorities have to act within the confine of the powers conferred upon
them. They cannot commit trespass. Thus without acquisition of the
land under section 278 or 279, as the case may be, of the Act of 1956 on
the refusal of the owner to remove, Corporation has no right to have the
land and remove the structure. Under the guise of Section 305, E
Corporation cannot invoke the power of acquisition ofland.
28. On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that the provision
contained in section 305 authorises the Corporation to remove any part
of the building. If any part of building projects beyond the regular line of
building, existing or as determined for the future or beyond the front of F
immediately adjoining buildings, that part or some portion of the part
projecting beyond the regular line or beyond the front of the adjoining
building shall be removed. The action taken is in accordance with the
law hence no interference is called for.
29. In our considered opinion, it is clear that Section 305 deals G
with the power of Corporation to regulate line of buildings. If any part
of the building falls within the regular line ofa 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 pait projecting, shall be removed
H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 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 words 'that the part or
some portion of the part projecting beyond the regular line' of the public
street may be :
B
(a) greater portion of such building which has not fallen down; or
(b) that projecting part is verandah, step or some other structure external
to the main building; or
( c) whenever any material portion or such material part has been taken
c down, burned down or has fallen down.
All the abovesaid exigencies are covered in the ken of section
305(1 ). Section 305 only contemplates issuance of a notice, in the case
of a public street that the part projecting is beyond the regular line of
public street and is greater portion or material portion of such building or
D external portion to the main building, shall be removed. It has to intimate
its intention to remove the structure. In case any portion of such material
part has been taken down, burned down or has fallen down, the
Corporation may require by notice such portion shall be set back to.
30. We are not at all impressed by the submission that section 305
E contemplates only voluntary removal by the ownerofthe building. Section
305 is a wholesome provision with respect to maintaining the regular line
of a pub Iic street, existing or as determined for the future, it clearly
empowers the Corporation to intimate its intention to remove that part of
the structure projecting beyond the regular line of public street under
section 305. The primary statutory mandate is on Corporation to act for
F removal. Obviously, it has power to remove is apparent from plain
language otherwise the provision will be ofno utility. The point when the
notice can be issued is clearly culled out in section 305. In the case of
clause (a) when the projecting part is external to the main building such
as verandah, step etc. then notice can be issued at any time and two
G points of happening of exigencies are provided separately in clause (b ):
first, whenever projecting part is not an external structure but is a greater
portion of such building and it projects beyond the regular line of public
street and second exigency provided in clause (b) has to be read as
"whenever any material potiion of such projecting part has been taken
down or burned down or has fallen down".
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 411
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.)
31. Even in clause (b) of section 305, 'removal' is contemplated A
and is not confined to a case under clause (a). The Legislature has used
two expressions : "whenever greater portion of such building" and
secondly "whenever any material portion of projecting part has been
taken down or burned down or has fallen down", which means that
clause (b) clearly fixes the time for action that 'whenever' projecting B
part of greater portion of such building is projecting beyond the regular
line of public street, removal can be made or 'whenever' material portion
of 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. The removal is contemplated even in the latter exigency of
clause (b) when material portion of such part has been taken down, c
bumed down or fallen down, still some portion other than 'material portion'
projecting in line may require removal which has not been taken down,
fallen down or burned down. It is not that the expression that entire
building projecting in regular line of public street has been taken down,
burned down or fallen down. The expression in the latter part of clause D
(b) is taken down, fallen down or burned down is not related to the
entire projecting part. Thus the earlier part "whenever greater portion of
such building" is projecting beyond the regular line of public street, has
to be read with respect to a building which has not fallen down, taken
down or burned down. The word 'or' in section 305( 1)(b) used between
greater portion of such building or whenever any material portion of E
such building has to be read disjunctively. Nonetheless 'removal' is
contemplated in all the exigencies. In case it has been taken down, burned
down or fallen down, it may require the material portion to be set back
and remaining portion can be removed in the latter exigency of clause
(b) itself.
F
32. In our opinion, a notice can be issued by the Corporation for
removal of the existing structure also. The opening part of section 305( I)
and its latter part after clause (b) make it abundantly clear that a building
or a part of the portion which projects into the periphery of regular line
of public street, can be removed. The interpretation suggested on behalf
of the appellants that in case the building has been taken down, burned G
down or fallen down, only in that exigency action can be taken under
section 305(b) and not otherwise, would render the provision contained
in section 305 and the provision as to public street in the development
plan otiose.
H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9 S.C.R.
A 33. Learned counsel for the appellant/s has placed reliance on the
provisions contained in sections 307(3), 309(2), 309(5), 309(6), 310 and
313 so as to contend that statutory power has been conferred under
those provisions and Commissioner has been statutorily authorized on
the failure of the owner to remove the construction after notice to remove
the same. Therefore, it was submitted that accordingly the provisions of
B
section 305 should be construed by us so as to negate the power of
removal with the Corporation.
34. In our opinion, the provision contained in section 307 is totally
different. Where an adjudicatory process is involved, person can show
sufficient cause why the bui Iding or work shall not be removed, altered
c or pulled down but in the cases falling within the purview of section 305,
there is no such adjudicatory process or discretion provided. The
expression used in section 307(2) is that show-cause has to be made
why the work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, and a person
is required to show-cause and on his own failure to show "sufficient
D cause" why such building or work should not be removed, Commissioner
is authorized to remove, alter or pull down the building or work under
section 307(3). Since the notice which is contemplated under section
305 does not involve such a case showing sufficiency of cause in case
building is falling within the regular line of public street, the building is
necessarily to be removed. The expression used is that require by notice
E
removal of the building, the legislative mandate for removal is addressed
to the Corporation also to remove the same. As such it was not necessary
to repeat it once over again in the provisions contained in section 305.
35. Section 309 deals with the provisions regarding building unfit
for human habitation. In that eventuality certain procedure is specified.
F We find absolutely no ground to accept the submission that the procedure
prescribed under section 309 or the provisions thereof should guide the
interpretation of section 305 and for similar reason the provisions
contained in sections 310 and 313 relating to dangerous building and
removal of building material from any places in certain cases which may
G be considered harming or breeding places for riot or other source of
danger or nuisance to the occupier, then a notice shall be required to be
issued; and on failure the Commissioner is empowered to remove;
whereas the provisions of section 305 cast a mandate upon the
Corporation to remove whatever is projecting beyond the regular line of
public street. The intendment of the aforesaid provisions is different,
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 413
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
hence render no help or guide so as to interpret the provisions of section A
305. In fact when all the provisions are considered, the interpretation of
section 305 is fortified that it primarily mandates the Corporation to take
action of removal on satisfaction of exigencies specified therein.
In re : Possession/deemed to be part of public street and vesting
under section 305 of the Act of 1956: B
36. Coming to question as to when vesting takes place. As soon
as the building or the projecting part has been removed or when the
Corporation has issued a notice when such re-building shall be set back
or to the front line, the line added by such action by setting back or
removal, shall henceforth without any further formalities, be deemed to c
be a part of public street and shall vest in the Corporation. Vesting does
not depend upon the volition of the owner. Otherwise no public street
can ever be brought in regular line. The Corporation has the power to
remove, as discussed hereinabove. As deemed vesting is provided under
Section 305, as such there is no requirement of separate provision for
taking possession. For removal there is specific provision and adequate D ,,
safeguards have been provided for fixing the regular line of a public
street while preparing the development plan or the town development
scheme, as the case may be.
37. In The Municipal Corporation, Indore v. K.N. Palsikar
AIR 1969 SC 579, a question arose whether it was open to the Corporation E
to withdraw from the acquisition. This Court has laid down that there is
automatic vesting of land in the Corporation under section 305 once the
requisite conditions are satisfied. This Court has observed as under:
"14. Regarding point No. I, we agree with the High Court that
there is no provision in the Act for enabling the Corporation to F
withdraw from the acquisition proceedings. In fact, it seems to
us that there is automatic vesting ofthe land in the Corporation
under Sec. 305 once the requisite conditions are satisfied.
"
(emphasis supplied) G
As to the third question framed by this Court in Palsikar's case
(supra) to the effect that when the Act provides only for compensation
and not any solatium whether it could be paid. This Court laid down that
once the Land Acquisition Act is applicable under section 387 solatium
can be claimed. H
414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 38. It was also submitted that possession can be taken only after
compensation has been paid as held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hari
Ram (2013) 4 SCC 280. It was submitted that there is a difference
between de jure possession and de facto possession. It was also submitted
that mere vesting in the absence of specific substantive provision
providing for taking over of possession forcibly, does not authorize any
B
authority to take over the physical possession of any property. The
decision in State of U.P. v. Hari Ram (supra) is quite distinguishable
and is based upon the provisions contained in section 10 of the Urban
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short, "the Act of 1976").
Section I 0(5) whereof provides after the land has vested to take
c possession by a notice. On failure to comply with the notice to hand-
over possession Competent Authority may take possession under section
10(6) of the Act of 1976. Legal fiction of vesting has been taken into
consideration and discussed by this Court in the said decision. This Court
has laid down that while the meaning of the legal fiction has to be
D ascertained for what purpose it is created and should be carried as far
as necessary to achieve the legislative purpose, the word 'vest' in a
statute has different meaning in different contexts. This Court has also
held that "vest/vested" therefore may or may not include transfer of
possession, the meaning of which depends on the context in which it has
been used and the interpretation of various other related provisions. This
E Court in Hari Ram (supra) has discussed the meaning of such legal
fiction thus :
"18. The legislature is competent to create a legal fiction, for the
purpose of assuming existence of a fact which does not really
exist. Sub-section (3) of Section I 0 contained two deeming
F provisions such as "deemed to have been acquired" and "deemed
to have been vested absolutely". Let us first examine the legal
consequences of a "deeming provision". In interpreting the
provision creating a legal fiction, the court is to ascertain for what
purpose the fiction is created and after ascertaining this, the court
is to assume all those facts and consequences which are incidental
G or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction. This
Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan ( 1996) 2 SCC 449 held that what can be deemed to
exist under a legal fiction are facts and not legal consequences
which do not flow from the law as it stands.
H
-__,..' RAVINDAA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 415
"'-'...._ _MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
19. James, L.J. in Levy, In re, exp Walton (1881) 17 Ch D 746 A
speaks on deeming fiction as: (Ch D p. 756)
"... When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to
have been done, which in fact and [in] truth was not done, the
court is entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and
between what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to." B
24. The expression "deemed to have been acquired" used as a
deeming fiction under sub-section (3) of Section 10 can only mean
acquisition of title or acquisition of interests because till that time
the land may be either in the ownership of the person who held
that vacant land or to possess such land as owner or as a tenant ·c
or as mortgagee and so on as defined under Section 2( 1) of the
Act. The word "vested" has not been defined in the Act, so also
the word "absolutely". What is vested absolutely is only the land
which is deemed to have acquired and nothing more. The word
"vest" has different meaning in different context; especially when
we examine the meaning of "vesting" on the basis of a statutory D
hypothesis of a deeming provision which Lord Hoffmann in
Customs and Excise Commissioners v. Zielinski Baker and
Partners Ltd. (2004) 2 All ER 141 (HL) at para 11 described as
"heroic piece of deeming".
28. "Vest"/"vested", therefore, may or may not include "transfer E
of possession", the meaning of which depends on the context in
which it has been placed and the interpretation of various other
related provisions."
Though in the context of section 10 of the Urban Ceiling Act and
provision of taking possession, this Court in Hari Ram (supra) has laid
down that "vesting" under section l 0 takes in every interest in the property F
including de jure possession and not de facto but it is always open to a
person to voluntarily surrender and give possession under section l 0(3)
of the Act, which is not the position in the instant case as held by us in
removal of the building under section 305 of the Act of 1956, it is implicit
that once removal is made, vesting follows and possession stands G
transferred as part of public street. When we consider the deeming
fiction in section 305 and vesting provision, de Jure and de facto
possession automatically vested in the Corporation on the happening of
the exigencies as provided in section 305.
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS -[~0~.6] 9 S.C.&:-. ·
A 39. It was submitted on behalf of appellants that there is a conscious
omission in the provision contained in section 305 with respect to the
power of entry, removal or to take possession. The appel Ian ts have relied
upon the decision of this Court in The Commissioner of Sales Tax,
U.P. Lucknow v. Mis. Parson Tools & Plants, Kanpur ( 1975) 4 SCC
22, thus :
B
"16. If the legislature wilfully omits to incorporate something of
an analogous law in a subsequent statute, or even if there is a
casus omissus in a statute, the language of which is otherwise
plain and unambiguous, the Court is not competent to supply the
omission by engrafting on it or introducing in it, under the guise of
c interpretation, by analogy or implication, something what it thinks
to be a general principle ofjustice and equity. To do so "would be
entrenching upon the preserves of Legislature'', the primary
function of a court of law being ;us dicere and not ;us dare. "
40. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellant/s that even if
D there is some mistake or casus omissus or defect in the phraseology
used by the Legislature, the court cannot aid the Legislature's defective
phrasing of an Act or add and amend or, by construction, make up the
deficiencies which are left in the Act, placing reliance on the decisions in
Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar & Ors. (1953) SCR
E 533; Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh (1990) 3 SCC 682;
Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal ( 1992) Supp. 1
SCC 323; and Padma Sundara Rao (Dead) & Ors. v. State of T. N.
& Ors. (2002) 3 sec 533.
F 41. In The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow v. Mis.
Parson Tools & Plants, Kanpur (supra), this Court has laid down that
ifthe Legislature wilfully omits to incorporate something of an analogous
law in a subsequent statute, or even if there is a casus omissus in a
statute, the language of which is otherwise plain and unambiguous, the
Court is not competent to supply the omission by engrafting on it or
G introducing in it, under the guise ofinterpretation, by analogy or implication,
something what it thinks to be a general principle ofjustice and equity.
42. In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd.,
Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (supra), this Court
has laid down that when there is gap in the provision, it should be remedied
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 417
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
by the legislature by amendment. Court has only to interpret a statute A
and apply it to the facts. This Court has laid down thus :
"79. The court has to interpret a statute and apply it to the facts.
Hans Kelsen in his Pure Theory of Law (p. 355) makes a
distinction between interpretation by the science of law or
jurisprudence on the one hand and interpretation by a law-applying B
organ (especially the court) on the other. According to him
''jurisprudential interpretation is purely cognitive ascertainment of
the meaning oflegal norms. In contradistinction to the interpretation
by legal organs, jurisprudential interpretation does not create law".
"The purely cognitive interpretation by jurisprudence is therefore
unable to fill alleged gaps in the law. The filling of a so-called gap C
in the law is a law-creating function that can only be performed
by a law-applying organ; and the function of creating law is not
performed by jurisprudence interpreting law. Jurisprudential
interpretation can do no more than exhibit all possible meanings
of a legal norm. Jurisprudence as cognition oflaw cannot decide D
between the possibilities exhibited by it, but must leave the decision
to the legal organ who, according to the legal order, is authorised
to apply the law". According to the author if law is to be applied
by a legal organ, he must determine the meaning of the norms to
be applied: he must 'interpret' those norms (p. 348). Interpretation
therefore is an intellectual activity which accompanies the process E
of law application in its advance from a higher level to a lower
level. According to him, the law to be applied is a frame. "There
are cases of intended or unintended indefiniteness at the lower
level and several possibilities are open to the application oflaw".
The traditional theory believes that the statute, applied to a concrete F
case, can always supply only one correct decision and that the
positive-legal 'correctness' of this decision is based on the statute
itself. This theory describes the interpretive procedure as if it
consisted merely in an intellectual act of clarifying or
understanding; as if the law-applying organ had to use only his
reason but not his will, and as if by a purely intellectual activity, G
among the various existing possibilities only one correct choice
could be made in accordance with positive law. According to the
author: "The legal act applying a legal norm may be performed in
such a way that it conforms (a) with the one or the other of the
H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A different meanings of the legal norm, (b) with the will of the norm
creating authority that is to be determined somehow, (c) with the
expression which the norm-creating authority has chosen, (d) with
the one or the other of the contradictory norms; or (e) the concrete
case to which the two contradictory norms refer may be decided
under the assumption that the two contradictory norms annul each
B
other. In all these cases, the law to be applied constitutes only a
frame within which several applications are possible, whereby
every act is legal that stays within the frame".
In Union of India & Anr. v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal (supra),
this Court has laid down that courts cannot supply omissions to a statute
c and a court cannot invoke the principle of affirmative action to avoid
discrimination so as to modify the legislative policy. In Padma Sundara
Rao (dead) & Ors. v. State of T.N. & Ors. (supra), this Court held
when casus omissus cannot be supplied by the Court. Reliance has
also been placed upon the decisions in Jones " Wrotham Park Settled
D Estates & Anr. (1979) 1 AER 286; Inca Europe Ltd & Ors. v. First
Choice Distribution (a firm) & Ors. (2000) 2 AER 109; and Singareni
Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao & Ors. (2013) 8
sec 789 which are the cases in which the court has supplied omissions,
the same is based upon the principle of true intent of the Legislature and
in order to give effect to the said intent, the courts can supply words
E which appear to be accidentally omitted or if the literal construction
would in fact do violence to the legislative objective. For that, three
conditions must be satisfied before this course can be adopted : (i) that
the intended purpose of the statute is not being achieved by literal
construction of the statute; (ii) that by inadvertence the draftsmen and
F Parliament failed to give effect to that purpose in the provision; and (iii)
the substance of the provision Parliament would have made an be known
with precision, though not in exact language, had the error in the bill
been noticed.
43. There is no dispute with the principles laid down by this Court
o in the aforesaid dictums. However the language of section 305 is plain,
simple and clear. In our opinion there is no defect in the phraseology
used. The exigencies when the notice can be issued including the vesting
part and deeming fiction are very clear. In view of aforesaid discussion,
we do not find any deficiency in the phraseology used in section 305 of
the Act of 1956, as such we do not venture to add, substract, amend or
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 419
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
by construction make up the deficiencies. We find that there is no omission A
or lacunae, much less casus omissus as submitted, in the provisions
contained in section 305 of the Act of 1956.
44. In the case of Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, the action has
been taken as per the development plan/master plan, 2005 notified in the
year 1995. With respect to Indore, action has been taken as per the B
Master Plan of 1991 notified in the year 1975 and Master Plan of2021
has also been notified. Both are the cases ofBRTS corridor project. As
such action has been taken under section 305 and in case oflndore, it is
also admitted that there was a scheme framed under section 49 read
with section 50 of the Act of 1973. ln the case of Bhopal, the appellants
have not pleaded that the scheme under sections 49 and 50 has not been C
prepared. Nonetheless the fact remains that Bhopal Municipal Corporation
has initiated action under section 305 pursuant to the permission given
by the High Court by its interim order to enforce the provisions of
Development Plan, 2005 notified in the year 1995 in which the width of
the corridor has been so provided. D
45. Gauged in the aforesaid perspective various provisions and in
particular restrictive provisions contained in the Act of 1973, restrictions
put on the user of the land by the owner on erection, re-erection under
the Act of 1956 etc., it is apparent that the power conferred under section
305 has to be exercised with respect to regular line of a public street, E
either existing or as determined for future, when hearing has already
been afforded while laying down regular line under section 18/19 of the
Act of 1973 and the power is conferred by notice to remove the building
under section 305 of the Act of 1956 which includes all the powers and
steps which are necessary for removal of such building. The vesting
takes place, as soon as the building is removed or notice is served forthe F
building to be set back, land is deemed to be part of the street and shall
vest in the Corporation. Thus, by deeming fiction vesting takes place, as
such there was no necessity of specific provision for taking over of the
possession that is implicit in the deeming pmi and vesting of the property
by legal fiction. G
Jn re : Section 78/79 of the Act of 1956 and Section 56 of the Act
of 1973 :
46. It was also submitted that when the provisions of the statute
are plain and unambiguous, court shall not interpret the same in a different
H
420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A manner only because harsh consequences arise therefrom and the
authority should be asked to acquire the land as per the provisions
contained in section 79 of the Act of 1956. Section 305 is required to be
harmoniously construed along with other provisions within the
constitutional limitations. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this
Court in Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Aganrn/ (2003) 2 SCC 577.
B
4 7. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that when
under section 56 of the Act of 1973 land has been acquired for town
development scheme by development authorities, the power cannot be
treated to be with the Corporation to vest the property in the public
street without its acquisition under the provisions of section 305 of the
c Act of 1956 without acquisition under section 79 thereof. It is necessary
to notice the provisions contained in sections 78 and 79 of the Act of
1956 and section 56 of the Act of 1973. The provisions contained in
sections 78 and 79 of the Act of 1956 are extracted hereunder:
"78. Acquisition of immovable property 01· easement by
D agreement.-
( I) Whenever it is provided by this Act that the Commissioner
may acquire or whenever it is necessary or expedient for any
purpose of this Act that the Commissioner shall acquire, any
immovable property, such property may be acquired by the
E Commissioner on behalf of the Corporation by agreement on such
terms and at such rates or prices, or at rates or prices not exceeding
such maxima, as shall be approved by the Mayor-in-Council either
generally for any class of cases or specially in particu Jar case.
(2) Whenever, under any provision of this Act the Commissioner
F is authorized to agree to pay the whole or any portion of the
expenses of acquiring any immovable property, he shall do so on
such terms, and at such rates or prices, or at rates or prices not
exceeding such maxima, as shall have been approved by the
Mayor-in-Council:
G Provided that no agreement for the acquisition of any immovable
property under sub-section (I) or (2) at a price exceeding one
thousand rupees shall be valid until such agreement has been
approved by the Corporation.
(3) The Commissioner may, on behalfofthe Corporation acquire
··: •(.o•. ' ' ••
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 421
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
by agreement any easement affecting any immovable property A
vested in the Corporation and the provisions of sub -sections ( l)
and (2) shall apply to such acquisition.
79. Procedure when immovable property or easement can
not be acquired by agreement.-
(!) Whenever the Commissioner is unable under Section 78 to
B
acquire by agreement any immovable property or any easement
affecting any immovable property or whenever any immovable
property or any easement affecting any immovable property vested
in the Corporation is required for the purposes of this Act, the
Government may in its discretion upon the application of the c
Commissioner made with the approval of the Mayor-in-Council
order proceedings to be taken for acquiring the same on behalf of
the Corporation as if such property or easement were land needed
for a public purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
D
(2) The amount of the compensation awarded and all other charges
incurred in the acquisition of any such property or easement shall,
subject to all other provisions of this Act, be forthwith paid by the
Commissioner and thereupon the said property or easement shall
vest in the Corporation.
E
(3) When any land is required for a new street or for the widening
or improving ofan existing street, the Commissioner may proceed
to acquire, in addition to the land to be occupied by the street, the
land necessary for the sites of the building to be erected on both
sides of the streets, and such land shall be deemed to be required
for the purposes of this Act." F
Section 56 of the Act of 1973 is extracted hereunder :
"56. Acquisition of land for Town and Country
Development Authority.- The Town and Country Development
Authority may at any time after the date of publication of the final G
town development scheme under Section SO but not later than
three years therefrom, proceed to acquire by agreement the land
required for the implementation of the scheme and, on its failure
so to acquire, the State Government may, at the request of the
Town and Country Development Authority proceed to acquire
H
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A such land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(No. I of 1894) and on the payment of compensation awarded
under that Act and any other charges incurred by the State
Government in connection with the acquisition, the land shall vest
in the Town and Country Development Authority subject to such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Provided that the said
B
agreement may contain such conditions and executed in such
manner as may be prescribed."
48. In order to understand the procedure of compensation
prescribed under section 305, we have to take note of the provisions
contained in sections 306 and 387 oftheAct of 1956 also. The provisions
c are extracted hereunder :
"306. Compensation.-( I) No compensation shall be claimable
by an owner for any damage which he may sustain in consequence
of the prohibition of the erection of any building.
D (2) The Corporation shall make reasonable compensation to the
owner for damage or loss which he may sustain in consequence
of the prohibition of the re-erection of any building or part of a
building except in so far as the prohibition is necessary under any
ryle or byelaw :
E Provided that the Corporation shall make full compensation
to the owner for any damage he may sustain in consequence of
his building or any part thereof being set back unless for a period
of three years or more immediately preceding such notice the
building has by reason of its being in a ruinous or dangerous
condition become unfit for human habitation or unless an order of
F prohibition issued under section 286 has been and still is in force
in respect of such building.
(3) The Corporation shall make reasonable compensation to
the owner for any damage or loss which he may sustain
consequence of the inclusion of his land in a public street but in
G assessing such compensation, regard shall be had to the benefits
accruing to that owner from the development of the land belonging
to him and affected by such street."
387. Arbitration in cases of compensation, etc.- (I) If an
agreement is not arrived at with respect to any compensation or
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 423
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.)
damages which are by this Act directed to be paid, the amount A
and if necessary the apportionment of the same shall be
ascertained and determined by a Panchayat of three persons of
whom one shall be appointed by the Corporation, one by the party,
to or from whom such compensation or damages may be payable
or recoverable, and one, who shall be Sarpanch, shall be selected
B
by the members already appointed as above.
(2) If either party or both parties fail to appoint members within
one month from the date of either party receiving written notice
from the other of claim to such compensation or damages, or if
the members fail to select a Sarpanch, such members as may be C
necessary to constitute the Panchayat shall be appointed, at the
instance of either party, by the District Court.
(3) In the event of the Panchayat not giving a decision within
one month or such other longer period as may be agreed to by
both the parties from the date of the selection of the Sarpanch or
of the appointment by the District Court of such members as may D
be necessary to constitute the Panchayat, the matter shall, on
application by either party be determined by the District Court
which shall, in cases, in which the compensation is claimed in
respect of land, follow as far as may be the procedure provided
by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for proceedings in matters E
referred for the determination of the Court:
Provided that-
(a) no application to the Collector for a reference shall be
necessary, and
F
(b) the court shall have full power to give and apportion the costs
of all proceedings in manner it thinks fit.
(4) In any case where the compensation is claimed in respect
of land and the Panchayat has given a decision, either party, if
dissatisfied with the decision, may within a month of the date G
thereof apply to the District Court and the matter shall be
determined by the District Court in accordance with the provisions
of sub-section (3).
(5) In any case where the compensation is claimed in respect
of any land or building, the Corporation may after the award has
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A been made by the Panchayat or the District Court, as the case
may be, take possession of the land or building after paying the
amount of the compensation determined by the Panchayat or the
District Court to the party to whom such compensation, may be
payable. If such party refuses to accept such compensation, or if
there is no person competent to alienate the land or building, or if
B
there is any dispute as to the title to the compensation or as to the
appointment of it, the Corporation shall deposit the amount of the
compensation in the District Court, and take possession of such
property."
49. We have extracted the definitions of 'private street', 'public
c street' and 'street' as defined in sections 5(45), 5(49) and 5(55) of the
Act of 1956. Private street means a street which is not a public street.
Public street means any street over which the public have a right of way
or which have been leveled, paved, metalled, asphatled, channeled,
sewered or repaired out of municipal or other public funds or which
D under the provisions of the Act, becomes a public street as provided in
section 330 and which includes the roadway over any public bridge or
causeway, footway attached to any such street, pub Iic bridge or causeway;
and the drains attached thereto. Street means any road, footway, square,
court alley or passage, accessible whether permanently or temporarily
to the public. Public street and private street are separately defined -
E though the public street may also include any street provided in section
5(49) but every street is not a public street and private street is a street
which is not a public street. Any street may be declared to be public
street under the provisions of section 330. In the exigencies as provided
in sub-section ( 1) thereof and Commissioner may also after inviting
F objections, declare a street or part of the same to be public street, and an
appeal is provided against the decision. Under Section 305 the power is
conferred on the Municipal Corporation to remove building or any part
of the building beyond the regular line of a "public street"; whereas the
provisions contained in section 79(3) is with respect to a new street or
for widening or improving an existing street. There is difference when
G there is a public street line, the special provision contained in section 305
is attracted. The recourse to the provisions of acquisition under sections
78 and 79 is clearly ousted by the special provision contained in Section
305 of the Act of 1956. Being a special provision with respect to
maintaining a regular line of a public street which has been carved out
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 425
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
by the Legislature under section 305 of the Act of 1956, would prevail A
upon the general provisions with respect to acquisition ofland as provided
in sections 78 and 79 thereof.
50. In "The Principles of Statutory Interpretation" by G.P. Singh,
J3•h Edn. 2012, Chapter 2 in which it has been laid down that
inconsistency and repugnancy to be avoided and provisions should be B
harmoniously construed, the author has observed thus:
"It has already been seen that a statute must be read as a
whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with
reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a
consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such a construction C
has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either
with in a section or between a section and other parts of the stature.
It is the duty of the courts to avoid "a head on clash" between two
sections of the same Act and, "whenever it is possible to do so, to
construe provisions which appear to conflict so that they
harmonise". It should not be lightly assumed that "Parliament D
had given with one hand what it took away with the other". The
provisions of one section of a statute cannot be used to defeat
those of another "unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation
between them". The same rule applies in regard to sub-sections
of a section. In the words of GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: "The E
sub-sections must be read as parts of an integral whole and as
being interdependent; an attempt should be made in construing
them to reconcile them ifit is reasonably possible to do so, and to
avoid repugnancy". As stated by VENKATARAMAAIYAR, J.
: "The rule of construction is well settled that when there are in an
enactment two provisions which cannot be reconciled with each F
other, they should be so interpreted that, if possible, effect should
be given to both. This is what is known as the rule of harmonious
construction". That, effect should be given to both, is the very
essence of the rule. Thus a construction that reduces one of the
provisions to a "useless lumber" or "dead letter" is not harmonious · G
construction. To harmonise is not to destroy. Afamiliar approach
in all such cases is to find out which of the two apparently
conflicting provisions is more general and which is more
specific and to construe the more general one as to exclude
the more specific. [South India Corporation (P) Ltd. v.
H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A Secretary, Board of Revenue, Trivandrum, AIR 1964 SC 207,
p. 215 : 1964 (4) SCR 280; Weverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v.
Raymon & Co. (India) (Pvt.) Ltd, AIR 1963 SC 90 p.95: (1963)
3 SCR 209; J.K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills v. State of
U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170 p.1194: (1962) 1 SCJ 417: (1961) 3
SCR 185; Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen, AIR 1977 SC
B
36, p.44: 1977 SCC (L&S) 253; U.P. State Electricity Board
v. Harishanker, AIR 1979 SC 65; (1978) 4 SCC 16: 1978
SCC (Lab) 481; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. D.J.
Bahadur, AIR 1980 SC 2181, pp.2202, 2208; State of U.P. v.
Renusagar Power Co., AIR 1988 SC 1737, p.1751: 1988 (4)
c SCC 59; State of Rajasthan v. Gopikishan, supra, p.1756.
See further Life Insurance Corporation of India v. S. V. Oak,
AIR 1965 SC 975, p.980: 1965 (1) SCR 403 (Compulsive
provision will control a discretionary provision]. The question
as to the relative nature of the provisions general or special
has to be determined with reference to the area and extent of
D
their application either generally or specially in particular
situations.[Col/ector of Central Excise Jaipur v. Raghuvar
(India) Ltd. JT 2000 (7) SC 99, p.111; (2000) 5 SCC 299:
AIR 2000 SC 2027] The principle is expressed in the maxims
Generalia specia/ibus 11011 derogant, [General things do not
E derogate from special things. Osborn s Law Dictionary] and
Generali bus specialia derogant [Special things derogate from
general things. Osborn s Law Dictionary]. If a special
provision is made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded
from the general provision.[Venkateshwar Rao v. Govt. of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828: (1966) 2 SCR 172; CIT,
F Patiala v. Shahzada Nand & Sons, AIR 1966 SC 1342, p.
1347: (1966) 3 SCR 379; State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramajibhai
Danabhai, AIR 1979 SC 1098, p.1103; 1979 (3) SCC 347;
State of Bihar v. Yogendra Singh, AIR 1982 SC 882, p.886:
(1982) 1 SCC 664; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary
G and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar
Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27, p.47: AIR 1984 SC 1543; State of
Rajasthan v. Gopikishan, supra, p.1756]. Apart from resolving
conflict between two provisions in the Act, the principle can also
be used for resolving a conflict between a provision in the Act
and a rule made under the Act. Further, these principles have
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 427
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
also been applied in resolving a conflict between two different A
Acts and two provisions in the Constitution added by two different
Constitution Amendment Acts. and in the construction of statutory
rules and statutory orders. But the principle, that a special
provision on a matter excludes the application of a general provision
on that matter, has not been applied when the two provisions deal B
with remedies, for validity of plural remedies cannot be doubted.
Even ifthe two remedies happen to be inconsistent, they continue
for the person concerned to choose from, until he elects one of
them."
(emphasis supplied)
c
It is apparent that the maxims Generalia specialibus 11011
derogant and Generalibus specialia derogant have to be applied in
particular situations. If a particular provision is made on a certain matter,
that matter is excluded from the general provision. Author has referred
to the law as laid down by this Court, inter alia, in Venkateshwar Rao
v. Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 828; C.L T. Patiala D
v. Shahzada Nand & Sons AIR 1966 SC 1342; State of Gujarat v.
Patel Ramajibhai Danabhai (1979) 3 SCC 347; State of Bihar v.
Yogendra Singh (1982) I SCC 664; and Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh
Kumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 27.
E
51. Even assuming that public street is also a street, considering
the special provisions contained in section 305, recourse can be had to
the provision without having adverting to the procedure prescribed under
sections 78 and 79 of the Act and the compensation in the case ofaction
is taken under section 305 is provided under proviso to section 305 and
F
section 306 read with section 387 to which the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 have been made applicable for determination.
Section 387 provides for procedure in case compensation determined
under section 306 is not acceptable, dissatisfied claimants can have resort
to section 387 which require determination of dispute by Panchayat/
arbitration, and in case arbitration fails, parties can approach the District G
Court which shall follow the procedure provided in Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. The provision of section 387 is very wide and covers all the
cases in which an agreement is not arrived at with respect to
compensation or damages which are under the Act directed to be paid.
Section 387 would cover the provisions of compensation payable under
H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 9 S.C.R.
A sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956. Sections 305 and 306 use the
expression 'reasonable compensation has to be paid' which would mean,
reasonable on the principle acceptable in accordance with law. It cannot
be fanciful or arbitrary one as suggested by the appellants.
52. The submission raised by the appellants that for acquisition of
B land, sections 78 and 79 should be resorted to for the purposes mentioned
in section 305 cannot be accepted for yet another reason, ifthe provision
as to public street is made dependent upon the acquisition of land, the
very purpose behind the provisions of section 305 would be frustrated as
well as the public interest, there is already a regular line of public street
fixed under development plan and is binding under section 19(5) and
c section 25 of the Act of 1973. Various rights ofownership which ordinarily
vest in an owner, are restricted by the regional plan, development plan or
the town development scheme, as the case may be. User of the owner's
land, property cannot be in derogation to any of them. Development plan
is binding upon the Corporation and local authorities and all concerned
D including the owners. Though they can transfer the property but subject
to such restrictions which the property will carry with it. If the land falls
in a regular line of public street, no construction can be raised, no
projection can be made by owner whereas it can be removed or set
back, as the case may be. In case acquisition is resorted to under sections
78 and 79, public street can never be widened and the entire purpose of
E preparation of Development Plan shall stand defeated.
53. What can be achieved by procedural safeguards in case the
property is acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 or the Act of 2013 by way of holding inquiry, such exercise has
already been taken care of while preparing regional plan, development
F plan or the town improvement scheme. The widening of the public street
cannot brook any delay. The provisions contained in section 387(5) which
empower the Corporation to take possession after determination of
compensation by arbitration or by District Court, would be applicable
only to the acquisition resorted to under sections 78 and 79, particularly
G under the provisions of section 79 and not to a case which is covered by
the special provisions contained in section 305 where the vesting is
deemed to be by operation of law as soon as there is deemed vesting,
the area shall vest in the Corporation and it shall be deemed to be a part
of public street. Thus the provision of section 387(5) is not attracted
when it is deemed to be part of the public street on vesting in the
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 429
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Corporation. The process under section 305 read with sections 306 and A
387 is just, fair and reasonable. The FAR is offered by the Corporation
as well as compensation and if it is not acceptable, recourse can be had
to the provisions contained in section 387 of the Act of 1956. It is not for
this Court to adjudicate upon the issue in which case FAR would be
suitable as part of compensation and what would be the impact of B
conversion of FAR into TOR i.e. Transferable Development Right.
Compensation in monetary terms is claimable under sections 305, 306
and 387. Thus, when recourse to section 305 is made by the Corporation,
it is not necessary to make acquisition under section 78 or 79 of the Act
of 1956.
54. Provision of section 56 of the Act of 1973 has also been pressed C
into service to contend that the authorities under the Act of 1973 are
also required to acquire the land by agreement or under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act for carrying out the purpose of development
plan as such, this Court should record a conclusion that the provisions of
section 78/79 of the Act of 1956 should be resorted to. Reliance has D
been placed on Ajjal Imam" State of Bihar & Ors. (2011) 5 SCC 729
wherein this Court has considered the basic rule of harmonious
construction, when cross reference ofrelevant provisions should be made
and in order to reconcile two apparently inconsistent provisions, one can
be read as "subject to" the other and if necessary reading down of the
provisions has to be made. E
We do not find any substance in the submission as for building line
with respect to public street, a specific provision is contained in section
305 which will prevail over the general provisions as held by us. Thus
the submission is rejected.
F
55. It was also submitted that wllen the law requires a thing to be
done in a particular manner, that thing can be done in that manner only
and other modes of doing it are excluded. For this reliance has been
placed on the decisions in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar
Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 111 on the following passage:
G
"40. The statutory interdict of use and enjoyment of the property
must be strictly construed. It is well settled that when a statutory
authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same
must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other
authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A statute. They must act within the four comers thereof."
56. This Court's decision in Laxmi Devi v. State ofBihar & Ors.
(2015) 10 sec 241 has been relied in which it has been laid down thus:
"16. The salient concomitants of Section 17( 1) deserve
enumeration.
B
16.1. FirstZY, the section is attracted even though an award has
not been made which, it appears to us, clearly indicates that the
completion of this exercise has not been obliterated or dispensed
with but has been merely deferred. An unambiguous and
unequivocal statement could have been made excluding the
c requirement of publishing an award.
16.2. Secondly, it is available only on the expiration of fifteen
days from the issuance of Section 9 notice. This hiatus of fifteen
days must be honoured as its purpose appears to be to enable the
affected or aggrieved parties to seek appropriate remedy before
D they are divested of the possession and the title over their land.
The Government shall perforce have to invite and then consider
objections preferred under Section 5-A, which procedure, as
painstakingly and steadfastly observed by this Court, constitutes
the constitutional right to property of every citizen; inasmuch as
E Section 17(4) enables the obliteration of this valuable right, this
Court has repeatedly restated that valid and pressing reasons must
be present to justify the invocation of these provisions by the
Government.
16.3. Thirdly, possession of the land can be taken only if it is
needed for public purpose, which term stands defined in the
F
preceding Section 3((). A conjoint reading of Sections 17 and 3(()
makes it apparent to us that urgency provisions cannot be pressed
into service or resorted to if the acquisition ofland is for companies;
however, we must be quick to add that this question does not
arise before us.
G
16.4. Fourthly, possession of such lands would vest in the
Government only when the foregoing factors have been formally
and strictly complied with. This section enables the curtailment of
a citizen's constitutional right to property and can be resorted to
only if the provisions and preconditions are punctiliously and
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 431
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
meticulously adhered to, lest the vesting be struck down and set A
aside by the court in its writ jurisdiction, on the application of
Taylor v. Taylor (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426 and several judgments of
this Court wtiich has followed this decision (supra)."
There is uo dispute with the aforesaid propositions but in the instant
cases the specific procedure prescribed for widening of the public street B
to remove the projection in the regular line of public street has been
adopted which is a wholesome procedure. Thus there is no violation of
law as the prescribed mode is being followed.
In re : Development Plan and Town Planning Scheme :
57. It was also submitted that there is difference between C
acquisition and reservation. A development plan merely creates a
restriction en user of the property and the land does not vest in the State
or the development authority on publication of the master plan/
development plan. Reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court
in Gimar Traders (3) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2011) 3 SCC D
1. Reference has been made to para 155 and the same is extracted
hereunder:
"155. The Court has to keep in mind the clearly stated legal
distinction between reservation and designation on one hand and
acquisition on the other. These are well-defined terms used by E
the legislature in both the enactments and they do not admit of
any synonymity or interchangeability. The reservation under the
MRTP Act necessarily may not mean and include acquisition.
The acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act may not necessarily
mean and include reservation. They are well-explained concepts
within the legislative scheme of the respective Acts. It may not F
be necessary at all for an appropriate authority to always acquire
the entire or part of the land included in the planned development,
while there may be cases where the land is acquired for the
purpose of completing planned development. With this distinction
in mind, let·us, again, refer to some of the relevant provisions of G
both the enactments."
The aforesaid submission is too tenuous to be accepted. There is
restriction put on the ownership rights and in the area no construction
can be raised derogatory to the development plan/master plan. When
the property vests is clearly culled out in section 305, however the property H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A is held by owner once a development plan is prepared, subject to that
use and it is not necessary to acquire the land as already discussed by us
for the purposes mentioned under section 305. Section 305 is otherwise
also a reasonable method of acquisition of the property and it follows a
detailed procedure for preparation of development plan/master plan or a
B town improvement scheme, as the case may be, which involves
adjudicatory process and once action is taken under section 305,
reasonable compensation follows, special procedure as prescribed, is a
complete Code in itself and even if a person is not satisfied, he can claim
adjudication under section 387 where the procedure of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable.
c 58. It was submitted in Bhopal Municipality matters that in the
absence of a scheme having been framed under section 50 of the Act of
1973, the provisions of section 305 of the Act of 1956 could not be
invoked, prior statutory exercise under section 291 thereof is necessary
which has also not been done. Attention has also been drawn to paragraphs
D 5.17, 5.18 and 5.1'9 ofW.P. No.5682 of2016. In para 5.17 it has been
pleaded that if it is held that any existing street will be treated as building
line by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation or for that matter that
the building line detennined by the Commissioner shall be the final building
line for the purpose of section 305 then on that ground also section 305
would become arbitrary, discriminatory and violative ofArticle 14 of the
E Constitution. It is reiterated in para 5.17 thatthere has to be the building
line determined only after following the procedure and rigors of section
291. Again in para 5.18 non-compliance with the provisions of section
291 has been pleaded. In para 5.19 it has been pleaded that until the
Corporation undertakes a statutory exercise of acquisition as mandated
F under the Act of 2013, they are not legally entitled to take physical
possession of the land. In our considered opinion the pleadings in paras
5.16, 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 do not at all amount on fact or on legal aspect
that there was no scheme under the provisions of sections 49 and 50
framed by the Bhopal Development Authority under the Act of 1973.
Thus the respondent-Corporation was not required to reply in the matter
G of Bhopal what has not been averred by the appellants with respect to
framing of the scheme under sections 49 and 50 in the aforesaid writ
petitions.
59. The interpretation suggested upon section 292, as to the
expression scheme'under section 291 of the Act of 1956 or only to a
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 433
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
scheme under section 49/50 of the Act of 1973 cannot be accepted. We A
have also discussed 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 expresssion 'scheme' under the provisions
of section 292.
B
60. On merits also, submission based upon sections 49 and 50 of
the Act of 1973 is found to be untenable. Development plan itself is
binding and has to be implemented by the Corporation not only under the
provisions of section 292 but also under the provisions of section 66( 1)(y)
of the Act of 1956 which mandates a duty upon the Corporation for
fulfilling any obligation imposed by the Act or under any other Jaw for C
the time being in force. Provision of section 66( I) is extracted hereunder:
"66. Matters to be provided for by Corporation.- (I) The
Corporation shall make adequate provision, by any means or
measures which it may lawfully use or take, for each of the
following matters, namely:- D
xxx xxx xxx
(y) fulfilling any obligation imposed by this Act or any other law
for the time being in force;"
Thus Corporation while taking action, is simply carrying out the
mandate of sections 19(5), 25 and other provisions of the Act of 1973. E
Framing of the scheme under section 291 as already held, is precluded
by virtue of the provisions of section 292, in view of the existence of
development plan which is final as to width of road or town development
scheme, as the case may be.
61. It was also submitted that Town Planning and Municipal F
Institutes are regulating and restricting the use of private property under
the aforesaid Acts. They are "expropriatory legislation". Thus they are
liable to be construed strictly as laid down in Chairman, Indore Vikas
Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. (2007)
8 SCC 705. In the said case the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. G
Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 627 has been
referred to, wherein this Court has considered the question and laid down
thus:
"59. Jn Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai (2005) 7 SCC 627 construing Section 5-A of the Land H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A Acquisition Act, this Court observed: (SCC pp. 634-35, para 6-7)
"6. It is not ir. dispute that Section 5-A of the Act confers a
valuable right in favour of a person whose lands are sought to
be acquired. Having regard to the provisions contained in Article
300-A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of
B 'eminent domain' may interfere with the right of property of a
person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public
purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.
7. Indisputably, the definition of public purpose is of wide
amplitude and takes within its sweep the acquisition ofland for
c a corporation owned or controlled by the State, as envisaged
under sub-clause (iv) of Clause (f) of Section 3 of the Act.
But the same would not mean that the State is the sole judge
therefor and no judicial review shall lie. (See Jilubhai Nanbhai
Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995) supp ( 1) SCC 596)"
D It was further stated: (SCC p. 640, para 29)
"29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation. This Court in State
ofMP. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma AIR 1966 SC 1593 observed
that in such a case the provisions of the statute should be strictly
construed as it deprives a person of his land without consent.
E [See also Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC
1074 and CCE v. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 5971
There cannot, ther.efore, be any doubt that in a case of this
nature due application of mind on the part of the statutory authority
w11s imperative."
F In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata (2005) 12 SCC
77 it was opined: (SCC p. I 02, para 59)
"In absence of any substantive provisions contained in a
parliamentary or legislative act, he cannot be refrained from
dealing with his property in any manner he likes. Such statutory
G interdict would be opposed to one's right of property as
envisaged under Article 300-A of the Constitution."
In State of U.P. v. Manohar (2005) 2 SCC 126 a Constitution
Bench of this Court held: (SCC p. i29, paras 7-8)
"7. Ours is a constitutional democracy and the rights available
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 435
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
to the citizens are declared by the Constitution. Although Article A
19(1 )(t) was deleted by the Forty-fourth Amendment to the
Constitution, Article 300-A has been placed in the Constitution,
which reads as follows:
'300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by
authority of lmv.-No person shall be deprived of his B
property save by authority of law.'
8. This is a case where we find utter lack of legal authority
for deprivation of the respondent's property by the appellants
who are State authorities."
In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (supra) C
the law is stated in the following terms: (SCC p. 622, para 34)
"34. The right of eminent domain is the right of the sovereign
State, through its regular agencies, to reassert, either temporarily
or pennanently, its dominion over any portion of the soil of the
State including private property without its owner's consent D
on account of public exigency and forthe public good. Eminent
domain is the highest and most exact idea of property remaining
in the Government, or in the aggregate body of the people in
their sovereign capacity. It gives the right to resume possession
of the property in the manner directed by the Constitution and E
the laws of the State, whenever the public interest requires it.
The term 'expropriation' is practically synonymous with the
term 'eminent domain'."
It was further observed: (SCC p. 627, para 48)
"48. The word 'property' used in Article 300-A must be F
understood in the context in which the sovereign power of
eminent domain is exercised by the State and property
expropriated. No abstract principles could be laid. Each case
must be considered in the light of its own facts and setting.
The phrase 'deprivation of the property of a person' must G
equally be considered in the fact situation of a case. Deprivation
connotes different concepts. Article 300-A gets attracted to
an acquisition or taking possession of private property, by
necessary implication for public purpose, in accordance with
the law made by Parliament ora State Legislature, a rule or a
H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A statutory order having force of law. It is inherent in every
sovereign State by exercising its power of eminent domain to
expropriate private property without owner's consent. Prima
facie, State would be the judge to decide whether a purpose is
a public purpose. But it is not the sole judge. This will be subject
to judicia·I review and it is the duty of the court to determine
B
whether a particular purpose is a public purpose or not. Public
interest has always been considered to be an essential ingredient
of public purpose. But every public purpose does not fall under
Article 300-A nor every exercise of eminent domain an
acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. Generally
c speaking preservation of public health or prevention of damage
to life and property are considered to be public purposes. Yet
deprivation of property for any such purpose would not amount
to acquisition or possession taken under Article 300-A. It would
be by exercise of the police power of the State. In other words,
Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person
D
shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There
has to be no deprivation without any sanction oflaw. Deprivation
by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under
Article 300-A. In other words, ifthere is no law, there is no
deprivation. Acquisition of mines, minerals and quarries is
E deprivation under Article 300-A."
Rajendra Babu, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) in
Sri Krishnapur Mutt v. N. Vijayendra She tty ( 1992) 3 Kar LJ
326 observed: (Kar LJ p. 329, para 8)
"8. The restrictions imposed in the planning law though in public
F interest should be strictly interpreted because they make an
inroad into the rights of a private person to carry on his business
by construction of a suita 1le building for the purpose and
incidentally may affect his fundamental right if too widely
interpreted."
G We have applied the rule of strict construction and found the action
is pennissible under the provisions of section 305 as the Corporation has
implemented the provisions of development plan, it is bound to implement
the development plan prepared after following the exhaustive procedure
consistent with the principles ofnaturaljustice, and is in the larger public
H interest.
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 437
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
62. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision of this Court A
in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra) wherein a question
arose with respect to the declaration made under section 50(2) of the
Act on the ground that unless a development plan for an area is published
and comes into operation, a draft development scheme cannot be
published by the Development Authority under section S0(2) of the Act B
of 1973. This Court observed that the area in question with respect to
which the scheme had been framed under section SO had not been
properly included in the area of operation of the development authority
under the Act of 1973 as such the action taken by way of its intention to
frame a town planning scheme or otherwise was wholly illegal, without
jurisdiction and a nullity. This Court also held that a draft development C
plan which has not attained finality cannot be held to be determinative of
the rights and obligations of the parties and can never be implemented
and end use of the land is not frozen until a final sanction plan comes into
force. This Court also held that the power to freeze the land use under
section SO(l) read with section S3 of the Act of 1973 can only be validly D
exercised for implementing a final sanctioned development plan. In the
instant cases it is not in dispute that there is a final sanctioned development
plan for Bhopal as well as for Indore and pursuant thereto action has
been taken under section 305. In Indore the town development scheme
exists and for Bhopal, absence of town development scheme under
sections 49 and SO has not been pleaded by the appellants. This Court in E
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra) has laid down thus :
"33. The Act envisages the following steps which are required to
be complied with:
(a) Constitution of a planning area by notification under Section
13. F
(b) Compliance with the detailed procedure set out under Sections
14 to 19, leading to sanction of the development plan under Section
19. The said procedure envisages compliance with principles of
natural justice.
G
(c) Section 38 provides for establishment ofa town and country
development authority, by notification "for such areas as may be
specified in the notification". Under sub-section (2) thereof, duties
of implementation of the development plan and preparation of the
town development scheme have been cast on the town and country
H
438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A development authority.
(d) The town development scheme is to be prepared upon
following the procedure set out under Section 50. The said scheme
can be prepared only when there exists a development plan,
prepared in ac·cordance with the procedure prescribed under the
B Act as envisaged under Sections 14 to 19 and after notification
under Section 38(1). In this regard, reference may also be made
to Section 2(11) of the Act, which describes a town development
scheme to mean a scheme prepared for implementation of the
provisions of the development plan.
c 41. When a draft development plan is prepared, the same is subject
to grant of approval and/or modification thereof. We will deal
with the matter in some detail a little later but at this stage, we
may notice that end use of the land is not frozen until a final
sanction plan comes into being. A town planning scheme, as would
appear from its definition contained in Section 2(4) of the Act, is
D prepared only for the purpose of implementation of a development
plan. Yet again, we would deal with the question as to whether
the same would bring within its sweep the draft development plan
or only final development plan a little later, but it may be noticed
that once a valid town planning scheme comes into force,
E indisputably, there may be freezing ofland use as also freezing of
development and, thus, a total embargo is placed except in such
cases where the Director had granted permission. Section 53 of
the Act, however, in the event a valid town planning scheme is
made, places a total embargo both on land use as also the
development. Even the Director is denuded of its power to issue
F any further permission. Existing land use, draft development plan
and final development plan envisage two-stage exercise. In drafting
or finalising a zonal plan, a similar exercise is undertaken. In making
a town development scheme, however, the process undertaken is
a three-stage one inasmuch as an intention therefor is declared
G which entails serious consequences and, as noticed hereinbefore,
by reason thereof, a total embargo is imposed both on land use as
also the development. For the said purpose, a time-limit within
which a draft town planning scheme has to be finalised is provided
but the same can be subject to modification by the State which
ordinarily should be with a view to deal with the same in line with
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 439
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
the final development plan. A
72. Land use, development plan and zonal plan provided for the
plan at macro-level whereas the town planning scheme is at a
micro-level and, thus, would be subject to development plan. It is,
therefore, difficult to comprehend that broad based macro-level
planning may not at all be in place when a town planning scheme B
is prepared.
73. Once a final plan comes into force, steps inter alia are taken
for acquisition of the property. Section 34 of the Act takes care of
such a contingency. The town development scheme, as envisaged
under Section 49 of the Act, specifically does it. Out ofnine clauses c
contained in Section 49, six relate to acquisition ofland for different
purposes. Clauses (v), (viii) and (ix) only refer to undertaking of
such buildings or construction of work by the authority itself,
reconstructions for the purpose of buildings, roads, drains, sewage
lines and the similar amenities and any other work of a nature
such as would bring about environmental improvements. D
76. A bare perusal of Sections 17 and 49 would show that it is the
development plan which determines the manner of usage of the
land and the town development scheme enumerates the manner
in which such proposed usage can be.implemented. It would follow
that until the usage is determined through a development plan, the E
stage of manner of implementation of such proposed usage cannot
be brought about. It would also therefore follow that what is
contemplated is the final development plan and not a draft
development p Ian, since until the development p Ian is finalised it
would have no statutory or legal force and the land use as existing F
prior thereto with the rights of usage of the land arising therefrom
would continue.
78. The essence of planning in the Act is the existence of a
development plan. It is a development plan, which under Section
17 will indicate the areas and zones, the users, the open spaces, G
the institutions and offices, the special purposes, etc. Town planning
would be based on the contents of the development plan. It is only
when the development plan is in existence, can a town planning
scheme be framed. In fact, unless it is known as to what the
contents of a possible town planning scheme would be, or
H
440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A alternatively, whether in terms of the development plan such a
scheme at all is required, the intention to frame the scheme cannot
be notified."
This Court has emphasized that it is the development plan which
determines the manner of usage of the land at the micro level. This
B Court has also emphasized that development plan to be implemented
should be final development plan. The very scheme of the Act postulates
that in case development plan has been prepared, may require for such
development plan micro planning wherever it is necessary and there
may be certain areas where no micro planning is contemplated in view
c of the specific provisions contained in the development plan such as
width of the road etc. which has been determined finally. Once the final
development plan does not require micro exercise and is in force, it is
not open to the development authority to redo that exercise under section
49150 while preparing the scheme at micro level as it is not authorized to
alter/modify the said provision of the development plan as it has no
D power to alter or modify the width of the road or building line as fixed in
the development plan and is bound to carry out the same. For such
matters which do not require micro-planning, it would not be necessary
to undertake exercise of section 49 read with section 50, publish a draft
plan, under section 50(3) invite objections and suggestions and to decide
the same issue of development plan once over again which is final,
E conclusive and binding and requires no further planning. If any
modification of development plan is permitted, it would defeat the
mandate of sections 19(5) and 25 of the Act of 1973, and in case the
authorities cannot alter the width of the road or modify development
plan, it would be a futile exercise and exercise in futility is not envisaged
F by law. The decision of this Court in Indore Vikas Pradhikaran (supra)
reinforces and buttresses our conclusion that it is a development plan
which has to prevail.
63. The appellants have also placed reliance on Rajendra Shankar
Shukla & Ors. v. State ofChhattisgarh & Ors. (2015) 10 SCC 400 to
G contend that the Act of 1973 provides for arrangement, the development
plan is an umbrella which encompasses within its fold a zonal plan which
is implemented through Town Development Scheme. This Court has
laid down thus :
"65. As per the factual averments of this case, Respondent 2
H RDA, without any resolution of the Board, on its own motion,
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 441
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
addressed a Letter dated 31-7-2006 and approached the State A
Government for change of land use because it had to propose the
township in Tikrapara, Devpuri and Boriakhurd Villages.
Thereafter, KVTDS was also proposed, published, finalised and
approved before the land use was changed by the State
Government. Under the provisions of the 1973 Act, the B
development plan/Raipur Master Plan (Revised) 2021 that is
prevailing, Respondent 2 RDA as well as the State Government
gave primacy to KVTDS and sought changes in the master plan
to suit KVTDS. This is impermissible in law. The finding recorded
by the High Court ofChhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in its judgment in this
regard that no finality can be attached to the master plan is an C
erroneous finding. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the
town development scheme which is KVTDS in the present case,
was not prepared in accordance with Section 5 0 of the 1973 Act
and we hold that KVTDS is ultra vires the 1973 Act.
Answer to Point (iii) D
66. Though we have answered Point (ii) in favour of the appellant,
we intend to mention other grounds too, which render KVTDS as
illegal. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants
contended that in the absence of a zonal plan, a town development
scheme cannot be framed by Respondent 2 RDA, and therefore, E
the acquisition proceedings of the land of the appellants cannot be
allowed to sustain.
67. The town development scheme is always subservient to
the master plan as well as the zonal plan, as provided under
Section 17 of the 1973 Act, which reads as under: F
"17. Co11te11ts of development plan.-A development plan
shall take into account any draft five year and annual
development plan of the district prepared under the Madhya
Pradesh Zila Yojana Samiti Adhiniyam, 1995 (19 of 1995) in
which the planning area is situated .... " G
68. Master plan falls within the category of broad development
plans and is prepared only after taking into account the Annual
Development Reports prepared by constitutionally elected bodies
of local panchayats and municipalities, etc. A zonal plan is
mandated to be prepared only after the publication of the H
development plan. Section 20 of the Act reads thus:
442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A "20. Preparation of zonal plans.-The local authority may
on its own motion at any time after the publication of the
development plan, or thereafter if so required by the State
Government shall, within the next six months of such requisition,
prepare a zoning plan."
B Further, Section 21 of the Act reads thus:
"21. Contents of zoning plan.-The zoning plan shall
enlarge the details of the land use as indicated in the
development plan .... "
(emphasis supplied)
c
Thus, it is evident from the language of Sections 20 and 21 of the
Act, that a zonal plan can be prepared only in adherence to the
development plan which in the present case is the Raipur Master
Plan of 202 l.
D 69. Next, Section 49 of the Act which provides for the provisions
for which a town development scheme can be prepared, has to
be read along with Section 21 of the Act, which clearly mentions
that the land required for acquisition by the Town and Country
Development Authority for the purpose of any development
E scheme has to be laid down in the zonal plan.
70. Therefore, a combined reading of Sections 17, 21 and 49
lays down that the development plan is the umbrella under
which a zonal plan is made for the city. The zonal plan in turn
al locates the land which could be acquired for town development
F schemes.
74. In the case in hand, KVTDS has been prepared in the absence
of a zonal plan. It is not possible to define the utilisation of land
under the town development scheme unless the zonal plan
formulated by the local authority describes with sufficient
G particularity the details for which the broadly indicated use of
land in the development plan may be put. Respondent 2 RDA is
not permitted to either usurp or bypass the power vested with the
local authorities for preparing town development scheme in the
absence of zoning plan merely on the ground that the local authority
did not exercise its constitutional power in preparing the zonal
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 443
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
plan following the direction of Respondent I State Government A
under Section 20 of the 1973 Act. A mere glance at the master
plan would clearly go to show that it does not set out the detailed
land use with sufficient particulars. Therefore, the framing of a
zonal plan by local authority in laying out a detailed plan ofland
use with sufficient particulars is a sine qua non under the provisions B
of the Act.
75. The legal contention urged on behalf of the respondents that
a town development scheme can be framed pursuant to the
development plan without there being a zonal plan, is not
sustainable. The learned Senior Counsel, Ms Pinky Anand and C
Mr Prashant Desai on behalf of the respondents relied upon the
Act pari materia for the State of Gujarat where the Town Planning
Act does not contemplate a zonal plan, and which contemplates
"DP-TP".
There is no dispute with the law laid down by this Court and town
planning scheme has to be subservient to development plan/zonal plan. D
Development plan which does not require micro planning is binding and
can be implemented.
In re : Vires of sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956 :
64. It was submitted that exercising the power for acquiring land E
by following the procedure under sections 305 and 306 suffers from
arbitrariness and thus violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution
oflndia. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Sura} Mall Mohta
& Co. v. A. V. Visvanatha Sastri & Anr. AIR 1954 SC 545. In the said
case the provision of section 5(4) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation
Commission) Act, 194 7 was struck down on the ground of being violative F
of Article 14. Submission advanced was that it gave arbitrary power to
the Commission to pick and choose and the clause was highly
discriminatory in character inasmuch as any evasion whether substantial
or insignificant came within its ambit as well as within the purview of
section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act. This Court has observed that G
it is open to the State to make the classification to determine who should
be regarded as a class for the purpose of legislation and in relation to a
law enacted on a particular subject but the classification to be pennissible
must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and
reasonable relation to the objects sought to be attained and it cannot be
H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis. In our opinion, the
provision of section 305 when it deals with the pub! ic streets and removal
of building falling in regular Iine is a wholesome one and being a special
provision, based on classification made for the purpose of section 305 as
to public street cannot be said to be suffering from vice or discrimination
and violative of Article 14. The procedure under section 305 of the Act
B
of 1956 cannot be said to be onerous or harsh and it cannot be tested on
the anvil of provisions of section 78/78 of the Act of 1956 or section 56
of the Act of 1973.
65. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Nagpur
Improvement Trust & Am: v. Vithal Rao & Ors. (1973) 1 SCC 500. To
C contend on the strength of the averment made in amendment application
filed before the High Court in W.P. No.5682/2016 that another agency is
acquiring the land within 1 km. periphery of the site of the BRTS corridor
by following the procedure under the provisions of the Act of 2013.
Thus the appellants are being discriminated. Para5.22 of the amendment
D application, Annexure P-17 of SLP [C] Nos.14493-96/2016, has been
relied on by the learned counsel. What has been stated is extracted
hereunder from the aforesaid pleadings :
"5 .22 That from the above, therefore the public notice dated
22.04.2016 (received on 24.04.2016) by the petitioners is also bad
E in law and deserves to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. It is
further stated on affidavit that within a I kilometer periphery of
the lands of the petitioner, the Capital ProjectAdministration (CPA)
is constructing a coordination link road from the area Bawariakala,
E-8 extension to Hoshangabad Road, which area is also falling
within the municipal limits of Bhopal Municipal Corporation. There
F the land owners would be entitled to compensation as per the
new regim,e under the newly enacted Right To Fair
Compensation And Land Acquisition Act 2013. However in
the case of the petitioners, they would be grossly prejudiced, as
there is no indication as to how much compensation they would
G receive u/s 305, 306 of the Act of 1956. Therefore the regime of
Act of 1956 is completely discriminatory in nature."
From the aforesaid pleadings it cannot be made out that the other
area where acquisition is made, is a case of public street under sections
305 and 306, it relates to construction oflink road by the Capital Project
H Administration where acquisition will be required. It is not pieaded in the
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 445
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
aforesaid paragraph that the other area is falling in the regular line of A
public street as per development plan, in the absence of such pleadings,
it is not open to the appellant to raise the plea of discrimination at all.
Even otherwise we have found provisions of section 305/306 to be fair,
just and reasonable and merely because for other places some other
procedure has been resorted to, cannot be a ground to urge discrimination. B
Hence, the submission based upon the dictum of this Court in Nagpur
Improvement Trust (supra) has no legs to stand.
66. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in P. Vajravelu
Mudaliar v. The Special Deputy Collector, West Madras AIR 1965
SC 1017. In the said decision this Court came to the conclusion that on
a comparative study of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Land Acquisition C
(Madras Amendment) Act, it was clear that if it becomes clear that if a
land is acquired for a housing scheme under the Amending Act, the
claimant gets a lesser value than he would get for the same land or a
similar land if it is acquired for a public purpose like hospital under the
Principal Act. The classification thus sought to be made by the Land D
Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act between persons whose lands
are acquired for other public purposes has no reasonable relation to the
object sought to be achieved. Thus this Court has held that under the
Amending Act, discrimination cannot be sustained on the principle of
reasonable classification. The ratio has no application to the instant cases
as the classification is found to be quite appropriate. Apart from that E
after the abolition of 'the right to property' as a fundamental right, the
provisions are quite consistent with section 300A and reasonable
compensation is paid under sections 305 and 306 which if not acceptable,
the remedy of arbitration and approaching the District Court under section
387 is available to seek the compensation which has to be on the basis of F
procedure prescribed in the Land Acquisition Act. No such impermissible
classification is made in the instant case as made by the Madras
Amendment Act which was struck down by this Court.
67. It was further submitted that sections 305 and 306 of the Act
of 1956 fail to provide any rational, reasonable, relevant principle for G
determination of compensation for deprivation of property of the
landowner and therefore violative ofArticles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution oflndia and they are liable to be struck down. Reliance has
been placed on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in K.T.
Plantation Pvt. Ltd. & Am: v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC I.
H
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A This Court has considered the various questions and interpreted the
provisions of Articles 300-A, 14, 19, 21, 30(1-A) and other provisions
and laid down the judicial scope of interference of a statute depriving a
person of his property. It has been laid down that though right to
compensation is inbuilt in Article 300A of the Constitution oflndia, the
obligation to pay compensation would depend upon the terms of the
B
statute and the legislative policy. Statute providing for no compensation,
nil compensation or illusory compensation must be just, fair and reasonable
in terms ofArticles 14, 19(l)(g), 21, 26(b), 30(1-A) and other provisions
of the Constitution. This Court also considered distinction between no
compensation and nil compensation and pointed out onus to establish
C validity of law in such cases lies on the State. Court cannot however
based merely on its own opinion, strike down such a law or statutory
provision. It was further held that the right to compensation cannot be
read into Schedule VII List III, Entry 42 which is not ambiguous at all.
The statutes depriving a person of his property are subject to judicial
D review by constitutional courts on the grounds laid down by this Court. It
was held that the concerned Karnataka State Act having received the
Presidential assent under Article 31-A was immune from challenge under
Articles 14 and 19. This Court also laid down that when the validity of
acquisition of property is questioned, grounds for challenge to a statute
enacted to acquire property but the statute is not protected by Articles
E 31-A, 31-B and 31-C of the Constitution oflndia, after deletion of Article
19(1 )(f), such statutes 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. This Court has also laid down that when validity of
acquisition of property is under a statute which is guarded by protective
F umbrella of Articles 31 A, 31 B and 31 C, such statutes can still be
challenged under Article 32 or 226 for violation of rule of law if the
violation is of serious nature which undermines basic structure of the
Constitution, violation of the basic structure of the Constitution or for
lack of legislative competence. In l.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. V. State
G of T.N. (2007) 2 SCC 1, this Court laid down that statutes protected by
Articles 31 A, 3 I B and 31 C would be as part of basic structure though
not Article 14 or Article 19 simpliciter. In K. I Plantation (P) Ltd. (supra),
this Court has considered the question thus :
"189. Requirement of public purpose, for deprivation of a person
H of his property under Article 300-A, is a precondition, but no
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 447
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
compensation or nil compensation or its illusiveness has to be A
justified by the State on judicially justiciable standards. Measures
designed to· achieve greater social justice, may call for lesser
compensation and such a limitation by itselfwill not make legislation
invalid or unconstitutional or confiscatory. In other words, the right
to claim compensation or the obligation to pay, though not expressly B
included in Article 300-A, it can be inferred in that article and it is
for the State to justify its stand on justifiable grounds which may
depend upon the legislative policy, object and purpose of the statute
and host of other factors.
190.Article 300-A would be equally violated ifthe provisions
oflaw authorising deprivation of property have not been complied C
with. While enacting Article 300-A Parliament has only borrowed
Article 31(1) (the "Rule of Law" doctrine) and not Article 31(2)
(which had embodied the doctrine of eminent domain). Article
300-A enables the State to put restrictions on the right to property
by law. That law has to be reasonable. It must comply with other D
provisions of the Constitution. The limitation or restriction should
not be arbitrary or excessive or what is beyond what is required
in public interest. The limitation or restriction must not be
disproportionate to the situation or excessive.
191. The legislation providing for deprivation of property
E
under Article 300-A must be "just, fair and reasonable" as
understood in terms ofArticles 14, 19(1 )(g), 26(b ), 301, etc. Thus
in each case, courts will have to examine the scheme of the
impugned Act, its object, purpose as· also the question whether
payment of nil compensation or nominal compensation would make
the impugned law unjust, unfair or unreasonable in terms of other F
provisions of the Constitution as indicated above.
193. Right to property no more remains an overarching
guarantee in our Constitution, then is it the law, that such a
legislation enacted under the authority oflaw as provided in Article
300-A is immune from challenge before a constitutional court for G
violation ofArticles 14, 21 or the overarching principle of the rule
of law, a basic feature of our Constitution, especially when such a
right is not specifically incorporated in Article 300-A, unlike Article
30(1-A) and the second proviso to Article 31-A(l ).
H
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 194.!.. Article 31-A was inserted by the First Amendment
Act, 1951 to protect the zamindari abolition laws and also the
other types of social, welfare and regulatory legislations affecting
private property. The right to challenge laws enacted in respect
of subject-matter enumerated under Article 31-A(l )(a) to (g) on
the ground of violation of Article 14 was also constitutionally
B
excluded.
198. Article 300-A, unlike Articles 31-A(l) and 31-C, has
not made the legislation depriving a person of his property immune
from challenge on the ground of violation ofArticle 14 or Article
21 of the Constitution oflndia, but let us first examine whether
c Article 21 as such is available to challenge a statute providing for
no or illusory compensation and, hence, expropriatory.
200. The question of applicability of Article 21 to the laws
protected under Article 31-C also came up for consideration before
this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai Mohan/al
D Khetan (1986) 2 SCC 516, wherein this Court held that Article 21
essentially deals with personal liberty and has little to do with the
right to own property as such. Of course, the Court in that case
was not concerned with the question whether the deprivation of
property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or live Iihood,
E but was dealing with a case, where land was acquired for improving
living conditions of a large number of people. The Court held that
the land ceiling laws, laws providing for acquisition of land for
providing housing accommodation, laws imposing ceiling on urban
property, etc, cannot be struck down by invoking Article 21 of the
Constitution." ·
F
It is apparent from the aforesaid dictum that Article 300A enables
the State to put restrictions on the right by law but the same should not
be arbitrary or excessive ur 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
G 300A must be just, fair and reasonable. Thus, 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. Based on the
aforesaid principles we find no malady in the provisions in question which
H may be required to be cured.
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 449
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
68. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of this Court in A
Rajiv Sarin & Am: v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 708
in which this Court has laid down that adequacy of compensation cannot
be questioned before a court of law but at the same time compensation
cannot be illusory and that there cannot be a situation of no compensation
to a person who is deprived of his property. The Court held that awarding B
no compensation attracts the vice of ii legal deprivation of property. This
Court has laid down that when the State exercises power of acquisition
of private property it can take possession of the private property for
public purpose. It does not require payment of market value or
indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated. Payment of
market value in lieu of acquired property is not a condition precedent or C
sine qua non for acquisition. Adequacy of compensation cannot be
questioned in a court of law but at the same time compensation cannot
be illusory. In Rajiv Sarin (supra), this Court has laid down thus:
78. When the State exercises the power of acquisition of a
private property thereby depriving the private person of the D
property, provision is generally made in the statute to pay
compensation to be fixed or determined according to the criteria
laid down in the statute itself. It must be understood in this context
that the acquisition of property by the State in furtherance of the
directive principles of State policy is to distribute the material
resources of the community including acquisition and taking E
possession of private property for public purpose. It does not require
payment of market value or indemnification to the owner of the
property expropriated. Payment of market value in lieu of acquired
property is not a condition precedent or sine qua non for acquisition.
It must be clearly understood that the acquisition and payment of F
amount are part of the same scheme and they cannot be separated.
It is true that the adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned
in a court of law, but at the same time the compensation cannot
be illusory.
82. A distinction and difference has been drawn between the G
concept of "no compensation'' and the concept of "nil
compensation". As mandated by Article 300-A, a person can be
deprived of his property but in a just, fair and reasonable manner.
In an appropriate case the court may find "nil compensation" also
justified and fair ifit is found that the State has undertaken to take
H
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A over the liability and also has assured to compensate in a just and
fair manner. But the situation would be totally different if it is a
case of"no compensation" at all."
Instant is not a case of no compensation. It cannot be said to be a
case of illusory compensation. In distinction to these terms the phrase
B used in sections305 and 306 is 'reasonable compensation'. This Court
has laid down in Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra) itself that the Land
Acquisition Act envisages payment ofjust and reasonable compensation
and qualifies the test of Article 300A.
69. Reliance has also been placed on Rustom Cavasjee Cooper
c v. Union of India ( 1970) 1 SCC 248 to contend that the law must
specifically either fix the amount of compensation payable or must lay
down the principle/s regarding the same. The Legislature cannot be treated
as conclusive and its objective can always be tested on such principle.
The principal must award to the owner the equivalent of the property he
is deprived for with its existing advantages and potentialities, including
D its benefit in the present as well as in future. The money value on thf'
date of expropriation of property must be considered while judging the
validity of the concerned enactment. The relevant provisions contained
in sections
.... 305, 306 and 387 of the Act of 1956 cannot be said to be
violative of the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court in the said
E decision as the amount of compensation payable has been specified and
the principles regarding the same have been fairly culled out.
70. The provisions of the Act of 1956 cannot be said to be violative
of the principles or dictum laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
decisions rather qualify to them and cannot be said to be violative of
F Articles 14 and 19. The provisions of sections 305 and 306 cannot be
read in isolation. It has to be read with wholesome provision of section
387 and what is contemplated under section 387 has to be taken to be
the principle of reasonable compensation even in sections 305 and 306.
Monetary value has to be worked out and it can be balanced with FAR
in appropriate cases which is quite reasonable method of arriving at
G compensation as discussed hereafter.
71. It was submitted by the respondents that with respect to the
principle of determination of compensation, a Constitution Bench of this
Cout1 has considered more or less similar provision contained in sections
212 and 216 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949.
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 451
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
It was found to have qualified to section 299 of the Government oflndia A
Act in Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors. v.
State of Gujarat & Ors. (1972) I SCC 802. The question of payment
of compensation for acquiring the land lying within line of pub! ic street
came up for consideration. A question arose whether Corporation is
liable to provide compensation. First proviso to section 216(1) which
B
provided for increase or decrease in value in the case of set-back and
adjustment of compensation accordingly. Question also came up for
consideration whether principle of willing seller and willing buyer is
applicable in such a situation, and what is the meaning offull indemnity
in accordance with the norms, and to what extent such provisions are
justiciable? Section 210 of the said Act contains a similar provision with c
respect to removal of project in the regular line ofa public street. For the
loss caused to the owner provision was made for compensation under
section 216 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949,
same is extracted hereunder:
"7. For the loss thus caused to the owner by the action of D
the Commissioner, provision was made for payment of
compensation under Section 216 which is as follows:
"216.( 1) Compensation shall be paid by the Commissioner
to the owner of any building or land required for a public street
under Sections 211, 212, 213 or 214 for any loss which such owner E
may sustain in consequence of his building or land being so acquired
and for any expense incurred by such owner in consequence of
the order made by the Commissioner:
Provided that -
(i) any increase or decrease in the value of the remainder F
of the property of which the building or land so acquired formed
part likely to accrue from the set-back to the regular line of the
street shall be taken into consideration and allowed for in
determining the amount of such compensation;
(ii) if any such increase in value exceeds the amount ofloss G
sustained or expenses incurred by the said owner, the
Commissioner may recover from such owner half the amount of
such excess as a betterment charge."
Other provisions of sections 389, 390 and 391 of the Bombay
H
452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 also came up for
consideration which are contained in para 8 of the report, same are
extracted hereunder :
"8. Chapter XXIV of the Act deals with the subject of
compensation generally. Section 389(1) provides as follows:
B "389. (1) In the exercise of the powers under the following
provisions of this Act by the Commissioner or any other municipal
officer or servant or any other person authorised by or under this
Act to execute any work, as little damage as can be shall be done
and compensation assessed in the manner prescribed by or under
c this Act shall be paid to any person who sustains damage in
consequence of the exercise of such powers, namely, ....
(f) acquiring any building or land required for a public street -
under Section 216."
Section 390 is as follows:
D
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commissioner or such
other officer as may be authorised by him in this behalf shall,
after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit, determine the amount
of compensation to be paid under Section 389."
This determination, however, is not final because two appeals are
E
provided. Under Section 391 it is provided as under:
"Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner or
other officer under Section 390 may within a period of one month,
appeal to the Judge in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
XXVI."
F
"The Judge" means under Section 2, clause (29) the Judge of the
Court of Small Causes in the City of Ahmedabad. Section 411
provides for a second appeal to the District Court. It says "An
appeal shall lie to the District Court (aa) from a decision of the
Judge in an appeal under Section 391 against an assessment of
G compensation under clause (f) of sub-section (I) of Section 389".
As regards the procedure to be followed in respect of these
appeals, provision is made in Section 434 sub-section ( 1) whereof
is "Save as expressly provided by this Chapter (Chapter XXVI)
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 453
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
appeals from original decrees shall apply to appeals to the Judge A
from the orders of the Commissioner and relating to appeals from
appellate decrees shall apply to appeals to the District Court".
This Court on due consideration of the aforesaid provisions has
held that the Commissioner is required to determine the compensation
first, thereafter if the owner is satisfied he can approach the Court of B
Small Causes or the DistrictJudge. The provisions of section 212 were
questioned on the ground that they were violative of section 299 of the
Government oflndia Act, 1935. This Court has laid down that sections
216 and 389 provide for indemnification for the loss caused to be made
to the owner of the property or other interests affected by the exercise
of power under section 212. This Court has laid down thus : c
"13. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court
that the Corporations Act does provide for the payment of
compensation for the property acquired. We have only to refer to
Section 216 and Section 389 of the Act for this purpose. Section
216( I) clearly lays down that compensation shall be paid by the D
Commissioner to the owner of any building or land required for
public street under Sections 211, 212, 213 and 214 for any loss
which such owner may sustain in consequence of his building or
land being so acquired, and for any expense incurred by such
owner in consequence of the order made by the Commissioner. E
Then Section 389(1) prov ides that compensation assessed in the
manner prescribed by or under the Act shall be paid to any person
who sustains damage in consequence of the exercise of such
po.wer, namely,"(() acquiring any building or land required for a
public street under Section 216". The two sections read together
make it clear that full indemnification in terms of money for the F
loss caused is to be made to the owner of the property or other
interests affected by reason of the exercise of power under Section
212. Under the latter section what is acquired for the purposes of
the street is the land of the owner which falls within the regular
line of the street. Several provisions are made in Chapter XIV for G
the widening of streets within the limits of the Corporation. With
the enormous increase in traffic in the more congested parts of a
growing City, Municipal authorities are constantly under pressure
to widen the streets and one of the several methods prescribed in
Chapter XIV is contained in Section 212. The regular line of the
H
454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A street as prescribed under Section 210 often passes through the
properties of owners abutting on the streets and it is impossible to
widen the streets unless parts of lands belonging to the owners
are acquired. Sometimes a building or a structure or part of it
stands on such land and unless that portion of the bui Iding which
falls within the line is removed the acquisition of the land for the
B
purpose of the street is not possible. Therefore, in the first instance
the section requires that the Commissioner shall issue a show-
cause notice why the building or a part of the building which falls
within the Iine of street should not be pulled down with a view to
release the land underneath for the purposes of the street. If after
c hearing the owner the Commissioner is of the opinion that the
building or part thereof should be pulled down, he must obtain the
approval of the Standing Committee and then serve a notice on
the owner to pull down the offending building or part of building
within a certain time. If the owner cooperates, he will himself
remove the offending structure and release the land underneath it
D
for being absorbed in the street. lfhe does not, the Commissioner
is empowered to pull down the offending structure at the cost of
the owner. Then sub-section (4) of Section 212 provides that the
Commissioner shall at once take possession on behalf of the
Corporation of the portion of the land within the said line (line of
E the public street) theretofore occupied by the said building, and
such land shall thenceforward be deemed a pa11 of the public
street and shall vest as such in the Corporation. The provisions of
Section 212, therefore, clearly declare that what is acquired under
that section is the land lying within the line of the public street.
The technical question as to whether there is acquisition of the
F
building when the owner himself does not pull down the offending
part of the structure but the Commissioner does it at the owner's
expense is not necessary for the disposal of the question whether
the Act provides for the payment of compensation. Since every
kind of loss is required to be compensated as a consequence of
G the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 216 of the
Act, the question whether the Act need have provided for
compensation as on the acquisition of the building or a part of the
• building which is pulled down under Section 212, does not survive.
The owner has to be compensated for every deprivation or loss
and, therefore, prima facie it must be held that the Corporations
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 455
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
Act provides for the payment of compensation for the property A
acquired.
14. It was, however, argued that the two provisos to sub-
section (I) of Section 216 when given effect to may not only
nullify the direction given in sub-section (I) for payment of
compensation but also in certain contingencies compel the owner B
to pay the Corporation something out of his own pocket. When
sub-section ( 1) provides for payment of compensation for the loss
suffered it provides for adequate indemnification or compensation.
When such compensation is reduced in the contingencies visualized
in the two provisos the compensation, it was submitted, may turn
outto be illusory and the provision for the payment ofcompensation c
an empty assurance. Proviso (I) prescribes that "any increase or
decrease in the value of the remainder of the property of which
the building or land so acquired formed part likely to accrue from
the set-back to the regular line of the street shall be taken into
consideration and allowed for in determining the amount of such D
compensation". Proviso (ii) states that "if any such increase in
the value exceeds the amount of loss sustained or expenses
incurred by the said owner, the Commissioner may recover from
such owner half the amount of such excess as a betterment
charge". Proviso (i) implies that the compensation payable under
sub-section (1) is liable to be increased or reduced after the set- E
back. It envisages that by reason of the set-back or the widening
of the street the property which still remained with the owner is
likely, on account of the new situation, either to increase or
decrease in value. If that happens, that is to be taken into
consideration and the amount determined under sub-section (1) F
will have to be adjusted accordingly. The High Court is of the
view that proviso (I) is unobjectionable as it is a principle governing
the determination of compensation and can be rightly employed in
determiningthe compensation for the property acquired. The High
Court, however, was not inclined to hold that proviso (ii) lays down
any principle for determination of compensation payable for the G
property acquired. It held, nevertheless, that the proviso was
severable from the main part of the section and did not affect the
provisions of sub-section (I) for payment of compensation. It is
obvious that it is only in very rare contingencies that proviso (ii)
H
456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2016] 9 S.C.R.
A may become operative. But in considering the question as to
whether the Act provides for compensation for acquisition or not,
there can be little doubt that it does so in sub-section (I) of Section
216. That it may in some rare contingencies be very much reduced
after taking into account the value of the benefit conferred on the
owner by reason of the widening of the street is no adequate
B
reason to hold that the Act does not provide for payment of
compensation. As a matter of fact in an actual enquiry for
determining the amount of compensation to be paid the authority
charged with the duty will have to assess, in the first instance, the
value of the total loss or deprivation actually suffered. The provisos
c may in some rare contingencies go to reduce the amount so
determined. Proviso (ii) envisages a situation where the widening
of the street has so much benefited the owner that the value of
the benefit even exceeds the actual loss suffered by him. In such
a case instead of getting any compensation for the loss the owner
might have to pay out of his own pocket. As to whether proviso
D
(ii) prescribes any principle for determination of compensation or
not is not relevant for our present purpose. Both the provisos
come into play only after the compensation for loss is determined
under sub-section (I) of Section 216 and since that sub-section
declares that full compensation must be paid for the loss or
E deprivation suffered by the owner it will be incorrect to say that
the Act does not make provision for the payment of compensation
for the property acquired. We have, therefore, no hesitation in
agreeing with the High Court that the Corporations Act provides
for the payment of compensation for the property acquired under
Section 212.
F
15. The next question is whether the Act specifies the
principles on which and the manner in which compensation is to
be detennined. The High Court has been of the view that neither
principles for determination of compensation nor the manner of
its determination has been specified and that is the ground on
G which it has held that the provisions of Section 212 are
unconstitutional. We are unable to agree with that view. What is
meant by specification of principles for determining compensation?
In State ofGujarat v. Shri Shanti/al Mangaldas and Ors. ( 1969)
I SCC 509, this Court observed:
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 457
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
"Specification of principles means laying down general A
guiding rules applicable to all persons or transactions governed
thereby. Under the Land Acquisition Act compensation is
determined on the basis of 'market-value' of the land on the
date of the notification under Section 4(1) of that Act. That is
a specification of principle."
B
At a later stage the Court again observed at p. 362:
"Rules enunciated by the courts for determining
compensation for compulsory acquisition under the Land
Acquisition Act vary according to the nature of the land
acquired. For properties which are not marketable commodities, C
such as lands, buildings and incorporeal rights, valuation has to
be made on the application of different rules. Principle of
capitalisation of not rent at the current market rate on guilt-
edged securities, principle of reinstatement, principle of
determination of original value less depreciation, determination
of break-up value in certain types of property which have out- D
grown their utility, and a host of other so-called principles are
employed for determination of compensation payable for
acquisition oflands, houses, incorporeal rights, etc."
The Land Acquisition Act makes market-value at a certain date
the basis for the determination of compensation. But there is no E
one sure way of applying the principle. As is well known when
set-back is imposed by the line of the street, the land actually
acquired by the Corporation may be in some cases a few square
yards or even a few square inches. Then again the land acquired
may be ofno significant use to anybody except to the Corporation F
as a part of the street. The land acquired may be wedge-shaped,
sometimes irregular in contour and often shapeless. Ifthe principle
of a willing seller and a willing buyer is applied there can possibly
be no market at all for the property acquired. It is not suggested
that in every case of acquisition ofland for the street this principle
will break down. But having regard to the fact that in the course . G
of widening the street the Corporation may have to acquire very
irregular, shapeless and small pieces of land for the purposes of
the street, a host of principles may have to be employed to
determine the compensation. We asked learned counsel for the
respondents what one general principle of determination of H
458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A compensation in such cases could have been appropriately
specified. We did not get any satisfactory reply. It appears to us
that this very difficulty in specifying any known rule of
compensation is responsible for the wording of Section 216 and
Section 389 of the Act which, in our opinion, gets over the difficulty
by providing full indemnification for the loss or deprivation suffered
B
by the owner of the building or other interests in the property. We
have referred to the provisions with regard to appeals. The first
appeal lies to the Judge of the Small Causes Courts and a second
appeal to the District Judge. The involvement of civil courts in
finally determining compensation imports judicial norms. Since full
c indemnification in accordance with .judicial norms is the goal set
by the Act it is implicit in such a provision that the rules for
determination of compensation shall be appropriate to the property
acquired and such as will achieve the goal of full indemnity against
loss. In other words, the Act provides for compensation to be
determined in accordance with judicial principles by the
D
employment ofappropriate methods of valuation so that the person
who is deprived of property is fully indemnified against the loss.
This, by itself, in our opinion, is a specification of a principle for
the determination of compensation.
16. As regards the manner of determination of compensation,
E it is provided in Section 390 of the Corporations Act. Under that
section the Commissioner or such other officer as may be
authorised by him shall hold such enquiry as he thinks fit and
dete1mine the amount of compensation to be paid. Either the
Commissioner or an Officer authorised by him has to hold an
F appropriate enquiry before determining the amount of
compensation. Since, as already seen, there is an appeal from
such determination to the Judge of the Small Causes Court under
Section 391 and a second appeal to the District Court under Section
411 it is clear that the enquiry must be made on broad judicial
lines. Any arbitrary determination is bound to be set aside in appeal
G because the Judges in appeal will be chiefly concerned to see
whether the enquiry is made in accordance with normal judicial
procedures for evaluating the loss by the application of methods
of valuation appropriate to the particular acquisition before them.
Since no limitations are placed on the powers of the Appellate
Judges in determining the loss in a just and appropriate manner, it
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 459
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
is expected that the Commissioner or his authorised officer, who A
holds the enquiry in the first instance, will be guided by principles
which meet with the approval of the Appellate authorities. In our
opinion, therefore, the manner of the determination of compensation
is also specified by the Act.
17. It is conceded before us that if this Court holds that the B
Corporations Act has provided for the payment of compensation
and also specified the principle on which and the manner in which
compensation is to be determined, it would not be possible to say
that the Act is either in violation of the provisions of Section 299
of the Government of India Act, 1935 or Article 31 of the
Constitution." c
Thus with respect to the compensation, considering more or less
similar provisions, a Constitution Bench of this Court has clearly laid
down that as a matter of fact actual compensation has to be determined
in the first instance, the value of the total loss or deprivation actually
suffered. It has to be balanced with the other relevant aspects for D
compensation. The Act provides for payment of compensation. The view
of the High Court that the principle for determination of compensation
has not been specified under section 212 was also not agreed to by this
Court. This Court has also held that the Land Acquisition Act makes
market value at a certain date the basis for determination of E
compensation. But there is no one sure way of applying the principle. As
is well known when set back is imposed by the line of the street, the land
actually acquired by the Corporation may be in some cases a few square
yards or even a few square inches. Then again the land acquired may
be of no significant use to anybody except for the Corporation as a part
of the street. The land acquired may be of different shapes, irregular in F
contour and often shapeless. If the principle of willing buyer and willing
seller is applied there can possibly be no market at all for the property
acquired. This Court opined that the owner gets full indemnification for
the loss or deprivation suffered to the building or other interests in the
property. Involvement of civil courts in finally determining compensation
G
imports judicial norms. There is no limitation on the power of the appellate
Judge. Thus this Court held that the provisions contained in sections 212,
216 and 3 89 were not violative of the provisions of section 299 of the
Government of India Act, 1935 or Article 31 of the Constitution. The
case was remanded by this Court to the High Court for examining
H
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A infringement of Articles 14 and 19 after laying down the aforesaid
propositions. We have on merits found no violation ofArticles 14 and 19
also in the instant cases.
72. It was also submitted that the provisions of sections 305 and
306 are required to be read down by incorporating the requirement of
B computation of compensation in the light of the principles laid down under
the Act of2013 while correlating it with the provisions of section 387 of
the Act of 1956. In view of the aforesaid dictum of this Court in
Municipal Corporation of City of Ahmedabad (supra), we find no
scope to entertain the submission and the reliance by the appellants on
Yogendra Kumar Jaiswa/ v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 183
c is of no avai I.
73. We find the principles laid down in sections 305, 306 and 387
are quite reasonable. Reasonable compensation is payable by the
Corporation for building or part thereof excluding the land under proviso
D 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
E to the appellants or not, cannot be decided at this stage. It need not be
decided at this stage whether they have a right to leave the FAR and
claim monetary compensation alone which is to be adjudged by the
concerned authorities within the pale of the provisions contained in
sections 305, 306 read with section 387 of the Act of 1956. How the
F compensation is to be worked out at the appropriate stage, is the outcome
of the authorities concerned and the job of the arbitrator/District Court,
as the case may be. 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.
G
74. Reliance has been placed on Laxmi Devi v. State qf Bihar &
Ors. (supra) and Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Ors. v. State of
Chhattisgarh & Ors. (supra). The decision in Laxmi Devi (supra) is
based on the specific provision contained in section I OA of the Land
Acquisition Act which requires compensation to be paid in a case where
H
RAVINDRA RAMCHANDRA WAGHMARE v. INDORE 461
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS. [ARUN MISHRA, J.]
emergency clause has been invoked. Collector is required to tender A
payment of 80% of compensation before taking possession of the land.
The said provision is not at all attracted to the Act of 1956. As
compensation is offered after vesting, is quite reasonable procedure as
envisaged by Article 300Aofthe Constitution oflndia, at which point of
time it is offered would not make the provision confiscatory or repugnant.
B
The compensation under section 305 or 306 read with section 387 is on
the happening of certain exigency, and various factors are taken into
consideration for determination of compensation is a quite valid procedure.
The Corporation cannot be compelled as per the special scheme of
sections 305, 306 and 387 to offer the compensation before removal and
vesting. Reliance on the decision in KN. Palsikar (supra) so as to contend c
that the possession should be taken after payment of compensation is
totally misplaced. This Court has simply narrated in para 11 what was
held by the High Court and the points which were decided were
capsual ised by this Court in para 12 of the report. The aforesaid question
was neither raised nor decided by this Court. This Court has not laid
0
down any such proposition in K.N. Palsikar (supra), as canvassed.
75. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of this Court in
Bhusawal Municipal Council v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Phalak & Ors.
(2015) 14 SCC 327 in which this Court has considered right to property
under Article 300-A and held that such right is a human right and delayed E
payment of compensation leads to alienation of section of society against
the system, further public purpose that is setting up of school, is no
justification for delaying/denying compensation in the garb of undertaking
developmental projects, without paying the compensation to the concerned
landowner as per the statutory provisions. It was also submitted that the
time period was not prescribed within which compensation was to be F
paid. In our opinion, the appellants have questioned the very notice,
initiation of action and when no time limit is fixed for payment of
compensation, it goes without saying that it has to be awarded within a
'reasonable time'. Law envisages speedy action without unreasonable
delay and that is what is expected of the concerned authorities, in respect G
of the obligation imposed on them to be discharged. Due to this, the
provision cannot be struck down as arbitrary nor it can be said to be
confiscatory in nature. We expect that the concerned Corporations would
do wellwhile offering the compensation to the appellants as expeditiously
as possible that is sufficient to take care of their unfounded fear.
H
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 9 S.C.R.
A 76. In the case of Bhuwan Bhandari v. Indore Municipal
Corporation (SLP (C) No.31541/2011) it was submitted that building is
a heritage building and there is bar on any kind of construction. The
boundary wall has been demolished by the Corporation and possession
has been taken of that part without compensation. The fact has been
denied by the respondc;nts that the building has been declared as heritage
B
one. It was also pointed out that the Corporation for the purpose of
widening of the road required removal of part of the boundary wall which
is quite external to the main building and is falling within the set back. It
is clear that the main building is not being demolished. The submission is
thus untenable.
c 77. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals being devoid
of merits are hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs as
incurred.
Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "municipal corporation"Sign in to search