Section 305 of the Act empowers the Municipal Corporation to regulate the line of buildings and order the removal or setting back of structures projecting beyond the regular line of a public street.

Noting that the provision has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare v. Indore Municipal Corporation [AIR 2016 SC (Supp) 372], a division bench comprising Justice Subodh Abhyankar and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed:

"Considering the fact that the petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 305 of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, which has already been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare vs. IMC and others reported as AIR 2016 SC (SUPP) 372, however, considering the issue involved in the present petition, it is directed that any action taken against the petitioner by the respondents shall be subject to final disposal of this petition."

In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court had upheld the Corporation's power under Section 305 to remove buildings, in ordinary cases, without there being a separate provision requiring it to take possession of the property. The Court had observed that the provision places a restriction on ownership rights and that no construction contrary to the master or development plan can be raised.

The Supreme Court had further held that once a development plan is prepared, the owner may continue to hold the property subject to the prescribed land use, without the need for acquisition for the purposes of Section 305 of the Act.

The present petition was filed by a house owner whose property is situated on Chaubis Khamba Marg in Ujjain. The petitioner operates a lodge, Aishwariya Mahal, from the premises under a valid licence.

According to the petition, on September 22, 2026, the Ujjain Municipal Corporation informed the petitioner that the entire frontage of the building would be demolished for widening of the road and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within seven days.

The petitioner has challenged the Corporation's action, contending that Section 305 effectively permits compulsory taking of land without following the acquisition process. It has been argued that the provision "circumvents acquisition and compensation procedures" contemplated under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petition further states that no compensation was paid to the owners or their families for the proposed demolition. It also contends that the demolition notice was issued without affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

The petitioners have also challenged Section 305 on the ground that its operation takes away their right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioners have accordingly sought interim protection against demolition, sealing, dispossession or any other coercive action in respect of the property.

The High Court, while issuing notice, directed that any action taken against the petitioners by the respondents shall remain subject to the final disposal of the petition.