2016 (11) TMI 1689 - SUPREME COURT

Acquisition of Land Under Section 305 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Appellants' main submission was that they had obtained the permission from the Municipal Corporation so as to raise construction - HELD THAT:- Section 305 deals with the power of Corporation to regulate line of buildings. If any part of the building falls within the regular line of a public street either existing or as determined for the future or beyond the front of immediately adjoining building, the Corporation may issue a notice either that part which is projecting or some portion of the part projecting, shall be removed or that when the building is rebuilt, the portion projecting shall be set back to and the portion of the land added to the street by such "setting back or removal", shall henceforth be deemed to be part of the public street and shall vest in the Corporation - The interpretation suggested upon Section 292, as to the expression scheme Under Section 291 of the Act of 1956 or only to a scheme Under Section 49/50 of the Act of 1973 cannot be accepted. The provisions of the Act of 1973 and the provisions of Section 292 of the Act of 1956. Under the Act of 1973, there is a regional plan, development plan or town development scheme they have to be understood included in expression 'scheme' under the provisions of Section 292.

Article 300A enables the State to put restrictions on the right by law but the same should not be arbitrary or excessive or beyond what is required in public interest. The imposition of restriction must not be disproportionate to a situation or statute. Legislation providing for deprivation of property Under Article 300A must be just, fair and reasonable - it cannot be said that illusory compensation is provided Under Section 306 read with Section 387. The decision renders no help to the cause espoused on behalf of the Appellants and on a closer scrutiny, rather counters it.

Reasonable compensation is payable by the Corporation for building or part thereof excluding the land under proviso to Section 305(1) and compensation for inclusion of land in public street is payable Under Section 306(3) of the Act. We do not find any ground so as to read down the provisions. We refrain to comment upon the submission with respect to the granting additional FAR is not acceptable to some Appellants, as it is not the stage of dealing with compensation how the total indemnification is to be made, whether FAR is acceptable to the Appellants or not, cannot be decided at this stage - The Appellants are at liberty to raise the question with respect to the adequacy of compensation and how the provision of Section 387 has to be interpreted and what would be the just compensation at the appropriate stage of determination of compensation.

The appeals being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.