Section 305 authorizes removal of structures projecting beyond a development-plan street line.

The petitioner challenged the Building Officer’s notice dated 7 April 2026, which required removal of portions of his shop on R.N.T. Marg, Indore, for road widening under the Indore Development Plan, 2021.

He argued, among other things, that the notice exceeded the area identified in an earlier order, that his objections had not been considered, and that the authority lacked jurisdiction or had failed to follow the required procedure.

The Corporation maintained that the notice followed a joint inspection and that the building projected beyond the regular line of the public street.

The Court recorded that a joint inspection took place on 6 April 2026 in the presence of the petitioner’s authorised representative and that the notice followed on 7 April 2026.

The petitioner sought quashing of the notice and consequential proceedings.

Whether the Corporation could require removal of the allegedly obstructing portions of the petitioner’s building under Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, by reference to the Development Plan.

Whether the notice and the procedure preceding it disclosed illegality, arbitrariness, or a denial of a fair opportunity warranting interference under Article 226.

Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 empowers the Corporation to require removal or setting back of a building part projecting beyond the regular line of a public street and provides for vesting of the land added to the street, subject to the statutory provisions on reasonable compensation.

The Court relied on Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation, (2017) 1 SCC 667, for the principles that a development plan is binding on the relevant authorities and landowners, and that Section 305 may be used to implement the regular line of a public street.

It also referred to Sections 17, 49, 50 and 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, concerning development plans and town development schemes.

The Court accepted the Corporation’s position that the action was taken under Section 305 to implement the road alignment in the Development Plan.

It relied on the recorded joint inspection and panchnama, which it considered to show that the construction encroached on Government land, and found no apparent violation of Articles 14 or 300-A.

Applying Waghmare, the Court treated the Development Plan as binding and considered the road-widening action consistent with the Corporation’s statutory authority and the public interest involved.

It therefore found no sufficient basis for writ interference, without separately elaborating on each of the petitioner’s objections.

It dismissed the writ petition and declined to set aside the notice or grant the requested relief.