Substantial compliance and deposited compensation justified dismissal of the Article 226 acquisition challenge.

The petitioners were title-holders or long-standing occupants of residential properties in the 12 Kholi/Barahkholi locality at Hari Fatak, Ujjain. Some properties were held under registered sale deeds, while others had been allotted by the municipal authorities.

The properties were proposed to be affected by the Hari Fatak four-lane Railway Over Bridge project, being executed through the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation (MPRDC) in connection with the proposed Simhastha 2028 infrastructure works.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court directed the authorities to issue a proper show-cause notice and provide the petitioners fifteen days to submit their replies before passing speaking orders. Pursuant thereto, notices were issued, objections were filed, and the Municipal Corporation passed orders directing the petitioners to vacate their houses within ten days.

The orders also contemplated interim rental assistance of ₹5,000 per month for three months and compensation calculated in accordance with the Collector Guidelines for 2026–27.

The petitioners challenged the eviction orders, contending that Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 could not be used to avoid compulsory acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

They further alleged that despite MPRDC depositing approximately ₹4.81 crore with the Collector, no valid acquisition proceedings or award had been completed before the proposed dispossession.

1. Whether the Municipal Corporation could invoke Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 to require the petitioners to vacate or face demolition for the Hari Fatak Railway Over Bridge project executed by MPRDC, an independent State entity?

2. Whether the Ujjain Development Plan, 2035 and the regular line of building were binding upon the petitioners and sufficient to support the impugned orders?

3. Whether the petitioners could be dispossessed without completion of statutory acquisition proceedings and payment or tender of compensation under the 2013 Act, particularly Section 38, in light of Article 300-A of the Constitution?

4. Whether the petitioners’ challenge was maintainable under Article 226, or whether they were required to pursue the statutory reference remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act against the determination of compensation or rehabilitation entitlements?

The Court applied Article 300-A of the Constitution, under which deprivation of property must be authorised by law and accompanied by reasonable compensation.

It considered Section 305 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, concerning regulation of the regular line of building, and Section 387 of that Act, providing an arbitral remedy regarding compensation.

The Court also applied the statutory framework of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, particularly Section 38 concerning possession after payment or tender of compensation, Section 64 providing a reference remedy against measurement, compensation, apportionment and rehabilitation or resettlement entitlements, and Sections 15 and 19 concerning objections and acquisition procedure.

Relying on Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation, (2017) 1 SCC 667, the Court recognised that a development plan is binding on the Corporation, local authorities and affected owners.

It also relied on Saira Bee v. Urban Administration and Development Department and other authorities to hold that disputes concerning compensation or rehabilitation should ordinarily be pursued under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

The Court distinguished challenges based on substantial procedural lapses from minor irregularities, accepting the respondents’ reliance on the doctrine of substantial compliance.

The Court found that the petitioners had received show-cause notices, were afforded an opportunity to submit objections, and that their objections were considered before the eviction orders were passed.

It accepted the respondents’ position that the Hari Fatak bridge was provided for in the Ujjain Development Plan, 2035 and that the development plan and regular building line bound the Corporation.

The Court further noted that compensation had been assessed at approximately ₹4.81 crore and deposited with the Collector, Ujjain, and that the petitioners could claim the amount and challenge its determination through the statutory remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act.

Although the petitioners relied on Article 300-A and authorities emphasising strict compliance with acquisition safeguards, the Court concluded that the respondents had substantially complied with the applicable procedure and that the alleged defects were only minor lapses.

The Court gave significant weight to the project’s public importance, its connection with Simhastha 2028, and the fact that more than 1,300 of approximately 1,500 affected landowners had accepted the award and compensation.

It therefore declined to interfere under Article 226, holding that individual objections concerning compensation could be pursued through the statutory mechanism without stalling the public infrastructure project.

The petitioners were permitted to avail themselves of the compensation already deposited and to challenge the assessment or award through the remedy under Section 64 of the 2013 Act, if aggrieved.

The interim status-quo or stay orders were vacated, and the respondents were permitted to proceed with the acquisition and Hari Fatak Railway Over Bridge project in accordance with law.