Are Private Properties A Community Resource? 9-Judge Supreme Court Bench To Decide
Supreme Court reserves verdict on whether private properties can be taken over by state for "common good" under Article 39(b) of Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in a significant move, has reserved its verdict on a crucial legal issue: whether private properties can be categorized as "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, allowing State authorities to take them over for the "common good".
The nine-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, is addressing this question. This bench is examining 16 petitions, including the primary petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners' Association (POA) in 1992.
The POA strongly opposes Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, introduced in 1986. This chapter empowers state authorities to acquire cessed buildings and the land they're on if 70% of the occupants request it for restoration.
The MHADA Act was enacted to fulfil Article 39(b) of the Constitution, a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which mandates that the ownership and control of community material resources should be distributed to serve the common good.
Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the state government argues that MHADA provisions are protected by Article 31C of the Constitution. This article, added by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971, intends to protect laws implementing certain DPSPs.
"...no law giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV (DPSP) shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges any of the rights conferred by Article 14 or Article 19 and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy...," Article 31C reads.
The bench, including Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih, reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from various lawyers, including Attorney General R Venkataramani and Mehta.
The POA and others argue that Chapter VIII-A of the Act discriminates against property owners and attempts to dispossess them. The lead plea, filed by the POA in 1992, has been referred to larger benches of five and seven judges three times before reaching the current nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.
Mumbai, being densely populated, has many old, dilapidated buildings still housing tenants despite their unsafe conditions due to a lack of repairs. The MHADA Act of 1976 imposes a cess on occupants of these buildings, paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which oversees their repair and reconstruction.
There are approximately 13,000 cessed buildings in Mumbai that require restoration or reconstruction. However, their redevelopment is often delayed due to differences.
| Follow the Hindeez on Google News |  |
| Follow the Hindeez channel on WhatsApp |  |
We hate spam as much as you do
© Hindeez 2024, All Rights Reserved
