BREAKING | [Day 5] 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict On Private Properties As Community Resources

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The 9-judge bench, on the fifth day of proceedings, reserved its verdict regarding the classification of private properties as community resources. The case pertains to a challenge against Chapter VIII-A of the Act, alleging discrimination against property owners and attempted dispossession. The lead plea was filed by the POA in 1992 and underwent referrals to larger benches of five and seven judges before reaching the current nine-judge bench.

BREAKING | [Day 5] 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict on Private Properties as Community Resources

NEW DELHI: Today (1st May): The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on a crucial question regarding the acquisition of private properties for the benefit of the community. The court is deliberating whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution, thereby enabling state authorities to take them over in the interest of the “common good.”

The bench, which includes Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, J B 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 bench clarified Article 31C

“No law giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, takes away from, 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.

Background:

The challenge against Chapter VIII-A of the Act, alleging discrimination against property owners and attempted dispossession, was initiated by the POA and others. The lead plea was filed by the POA in 1992 and underwent referrals to larger benches of five and seven judges before reaching a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.

This case, which has been ongoing since 1992, involves 16 petitions, with the lead petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners’ Association (POA). The association strongly opposes Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, which grants authorities the power to acquire cessed buildings and their associated land for restoration purposes if requested by 70% of the occupants.

The MHADA Act, enacted to fulfill the objectives stated in Article 39(b) of the Constitution, a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), aims to ensure the equitable distribution of community resources to serve the common good. The state government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has argued that the MHADA provisions are protected by Article 31C of the Constitution. Article 31C, inserted through the 25th Amendment Act of 1971, safeguards laws that implement certain DPSPs, stating that they cannot be deemed void or challenged in court on the grounds of inconsistency with Articles 14 or 19.

The city of Mumbai faces numerous challenges due to its dense population and aging, dilapidated buildings that continue to house tenants despite safety concerns stemming from a lack of repairs. To address this issue, the MHADA Act imposes a cess on occupants of these “cessed buildings” to fund their repair and reconstruction, overseen by the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB). However, the redevelopment process is often delayed due to disputes between tenants or between owners and tenants regarding the appointment of a developer. Currently, approximately 13,000 closed buildings in Mumbai require restoration or reconstruction.