Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2016/11/30/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-pr/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:53:13+00:00

Document:
Civil Appeal No. 11336 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP [C] No. 16742/2016).
and held that the land be acquired under the provisions of the Act of 2013.
by a Division Bench of the High Court of M.P.
notified in the year 1995, the proposed width of the road is 66 mtrs.
Act of 2013’) ought to have been resorted to.
and published as per provisions contained in section 19(4).
part of the structure falling within building line.
is being executed through the nodal agency of Indore Development Authority.
falls within the purview of section 305 of the Act of 1956.
contained in the development plan.
Corporation is within its ken. It is not necessary to acquire the land.
of 1956 for acquisition of land.
note of the various statutory provisions.
shall thereupon become a public street.
the appellant and the Corporation.
deals with town planning. Section 291 mandates for town planning scheme.
the local authorities in such matters in public interest.
which has a reference in the Act of 1956 in section 292 thereof.
Panchayat constituted by or under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 etc.
defined in section 2(o), 2(q), 2(u) and 2(w) of Act of 1973 respectively.
of the Act. Director is empowered to prepare regional plan under section 5.
revenue. Removal or demolition is contemplated after notice and hearing.
shall cease to be a planning area or part thereof.
works involved in the implementation of the plan.
Director together with all connected documents plans, maps and charts.
alongwith his comments, to the State Government.
directions as the State Government may deem appropriate.
publication of the notice in the Gazette.
the modification in the development plan.
the copies of the approved development plan may be inspected.
violation of the development plan/regional plan, as the case may be.
to acquire the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
provisions contained in section 56.
the prior approval of the State Government.
provisions of this section with respect of buildings.
or suggestion with regard to the scheme which he may wish to make.
it shall intimate the Government accordingly.
may deem fit shall be paid from the Municipal Fund.
Pradesh which has ultimately consolidated the different Acts into the M.P.
by establishing the authorities under the provisions of sections 38 to 40.
confined to a scheme prepared under sections 49 and 50 of the Act of 1973.
There cannot be two schemes for the same area.
interpretation and ken of powers conferred upon the Municipal Corporation.
building or any part thereof being set back.
used in section 305(1) has to be read for the situation in clause (a) only.
confine of the powers conferred upon them. They cannot commit trespass.
hence no interference is called for.
down, burned down or has fallen down.
Corporation may require by notice such portion shall be set back to.
or burned down or has fallen down”.
any material portion of such building has to be read disjunctively.
exigency of clause (b) itself.
305 and the provision as to public street in the development plan otiose.
of the owner to remove the construction after notice to remove the same.
regular line of public street, the building is necessarily to be removed.
in the provisions contained in section 305.
satisfaction of exigencies specified therein.
such there is no requirement of separate provision for taking possession.
development plan or the town development scheme, as the case may be.
incidental or inevitable corollaries to the giving effect to the fiction.
provision which Lord Hoffmann in Customs and Excise Commissioners v.
described as “heroic piece of deeming”.
as provided in section 305.
upon the decision of this Court in The Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P.
Ors. (2002) 3 SCC 533.
thinks to be a general principle of justice and equity.
42. In Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corpn. Ltd., Chandigarh v.
interpretation by a law-applying organ (especially the court) on the other.
so as to modify the legislative policy. In Padma Sundara Rao (dead) & Ors.
109; and Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. v. Vemuganti Ramakrishan Rao & Ors.
error in the bill been noticed.
section 305 of the Act of 1956.
in the year 1995 in which the width of the corridor has been so provided.
Nasiruddin v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577.
generally for any class of cases or specially in particular case.
within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
thereupon the said property or easement shall vest in the Corporation.
such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
of the erection of any building.
is in force in respect of such building.
members already appointed as above.
shall be appointed, at the instance of either party, by the District Court.
proceedings in manner it thinks fit.
Act of 1956. Private street means a street which is not a public street.
passage, accessible whether permanently or temporarily to the public.
acquisition of land as provided in sections 78 and 79 thereof.
1170 p.1194: (1962) 1 SCJ 417: (1961) 3 SCR 185; Paradip Port Trust v.
Generalibus specialia derogant have to be applied in particular situations.
compensation payable under sections 305 and 306 of the Act of 1956.
Development Plan shall stand defeated.
section 305 read with sections 306 and 387 is just, fair and reasonable.
or 79 of the Act of 1956.
other and if necessary reading down of the provisions has to be made.
“16. The salient concomitants of Section 17(1) deserve enumeration.
excluding the requirement of publishing an award.
present to justify the invocation of these provisions by the Government.
this question does not arise before us.
when the foregoing factors have been formally and strictly complied with.
law as the prescribed mode is being followed.
enactments and they do not admit of any synonymity or interchangeability.
387 where the procedure of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is applicable.
scheme under sections 49 and 50 in the aforesaid writ petitions.
expresssion ‘scheme’ under the provisions of section 292.
mandate of sections 19(5), 25 and other provisions of the Act of 1973.
scheme, as the case may be.
construed strictly as laid down in Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v.
be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.
“29. The Act is an expropriatory legislation. This Court in State of M.P.
in the fact situation of a case. Deprivation connotes different concepts.
decide whether a purpose is a public purpose. But it is not the sole judge.
(a) Constitution of a planning area by notification under Section 13.
procedure envisages compliance with principles of natural justice.
been cast on the town and country development authority.
with a view to deal with the same in line with the final development plan.
when a town planning scheme is prepared.
with the rights of usage of the land arising therefrom would continue.
development plan which has to prevail.
finality can be attached to the master plan is an erroneous finding.
50 of the 1973 Act and we hold that KVTDS is ultra vires the 1973 Act.
the appellants cannot be allowed to sustain.
which in the present case is the Raipur Master Plan of 2021.
of any development scheme has to be laid down in the zonal plan.
Act does not contemplate a zonal plan, and which contemplates “DP-TP”.
planning scheme has to be subservient to development plan/zonal plan.
of SLP [C] Nos.14493-96/2016, has been relied on by the learned counsel.
is not open to the appellant to raise the plea of discrimination at all.
(supra) has no legs to stand.
the instant cases as the classification is found to be quite appropriate.
Madras Amendment Act which was struck down by this Court.
been placed on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in K.T.
and purpose of the statute and host of other factors.
must not be disproportionate to the situation or excessive.
provisions of the Constitution as indicated above.
be arbitrary or excessive or beyond what is required in public interest.
illusory compensation is provided under section 306 read with section 387.
may be required to be cured.
the compensation cannot be illusory.
qualifies the test of Article 300A.
same have been fairly culled out.
and 19. The provisions of sections 305 and 306 cannot be read in isolation.
quite reasonable method of arriving at compensation as discussed hereafter.
This determination, however, is not final because two appeals are provided.
appeals to the District Court”.
the streets unless parts of lands belonging to the owners are acquired.
the acquisition of the land for the purpose of the street is not possible.
for the payment of compensation for the property acquired.
the loss suffered it provides for adequate indemnification or compensation.
compensation for the property acquired under Section 212.
of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of that Act.
suffered by the owner of the building or other interests in the property.
as he thinks fit and determine the amount of compensation to be paid.
determination of compensation is also specified by the Act.
deprivation suffered to the building or other interests in the property.
judicial norms. There is no limitation on the power of the appellate Judge.
found no violation of Articles 14 and 19 also in the instant cases.
while correlating it with the provisions of section 387 of the Act of 1956.
& Ors. (2016) 3 SCC 183 is of no avail.
74. Reliance has been placed on Laxmi Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors.
(supra) and Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
laid down any such proposition in K.N. Palsikar (supra), as canvassed.
being demolished. The submission is thus untenable.
Previous Post Both the above suits were clubbed together. Evidence was recorded in Original Suit No.32/1974, whereupon, it was held, that the appellant was a cultivating tenant in respect of the above agricultural land, long prior to the notified date (-17.01.1959), and that, the appellant had occupancy rights over the above land, prior to taking over of the ‘Inam Estates’ by the State Government, under the 1948 Act. And further that, with effect from the notified date – 17.01.1959, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the erstwhile landowner Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu – respondent no.1, and the ryot stood terminated. And that, the appellant was entitled to a “ryotwari patta” for the suit land. This determination was recorded in Original Suit No.32/74, consequent upon the appellant being able to establish the above position, through the evidence of an “archaka” and a “trustee” (P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively), of the temple in question. The appellant was also able to demonstrate, that the appellant and his predecessors-in-interest, were cultivating tenants of the suit land, long prior to the notified date – 17.01.1959. It is in the aforesaid view of the matter, that Original Suit No.32/1974 came to be decreed. 11. As against the above, the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, could not establish the execution of the alleged rent deed (kadapa), dated 29.11.1970, in favour of the appellant. And as such, the Devasthanam could not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant, between Sri Sangameswara Swamy Varu and the appellant, as alleged. It was therefore, that Suit No.73/1974 was dismissed. The judgment and decree in Original Suit Nos.32/1974 and 73/1974 were passed on 31.10.1977. It is not a matter of dispute between the rival parties, that the aforesaid determination attained finality between the parties.
Next Post Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code=A plain perusal of the above quote also reveals that apart from an omnibus grievance against her in-laws to be responsible for their death, for which according to her, they ought to be punished, there is no reference or disclosure of any specific incident in support thereof. The suicide note divulges her ownership of lands and house which per se belies the charge that she had been denied the share of her husband in the family property. Noticeably, no attempt was made by the prosecution to prove the author of the text through an expert and both the courts below solely based their conclusion, in this regard on the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, the brothers of Surjit, who identified the contents to be that of hers again on eye estimation.-Though for the purposes of the case in hand, the first limb of the explanation is otherwise germane, proof of the willful conduct actuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health, whether mental of physical, is the sine qua non for entering a finding of cruelty against the person charged.-The materials on record, to reiterate, do not suggest even remotely any act of cruelty, oppression, harassment or inducement so as to persistently provoke or compel the deceased to resort to self-extinction being left with no other alternative. No such continuous and proximate conduct of the appellant or his family members with the required provocative culpability or lethal instigative content is discernible to even infer that the deceased Surjit Kaur and her daughters had been pushed to such a distressed state, physical or mental that they elected to liquidate themselves as if to seek a practical alleviation from their unbearable earthly miseries.- ingredients of the offence of Section 306 IPC have remained unproved and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted. The findings to the contrary recorded by the courts below cannot be sustained on the touchstone of the law adumbrated by this Court as well as the facts involved. The appeal is thus allowed.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.