New Delhi. The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on the complex legal question of whether private properties can be considered ‘material resources of the community’ under Article 39(b) of the Constitution and whether they can be used for ‘public welfare’. Can the state take over the authority? On this question, Chief Justice D.Y. A nine-member Constitution bench headed by Chandrachud is deliberating. The bench is hearing 16 petitions, including the main petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners Association (POA) in 1992.
POA has strongly opposed Chapter VIII(A) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. This chapter was added in 1986 and empowers state authorities to take possession of any building and associated land where 70 percent of the occupants request it for resettlement purposes.
The MHADA Act was enacted in pursuance of Article 39(B) of the Constitution, which is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) and mandates the government to formulate a policy towards acquiring ‘ownership and control’ , under which it is ensured that the material resources of the community are distributed in the best possible way for the public welfare.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state government, argued that the MHADA provisions are protected by Article 31C of the Constitution, which was inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971 with the intention of protecting laws giving effect to certain DPSPs.
Apart from Justice Chandrachud, the Constitution bench also included Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Justice BV Nagarathna, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Mishra, Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Augustine George Masih. The bench reserved its decision after hearing the arguments of various lawyers including Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
The POA and others have challenged Chapter VIII-A of the Act, claiming that the provisions of this chapter are against property owners and attempt to evict them. The main petition was filed by the POA in 1992 and was referred to a larger bench of five and seven judges three times before being sent to a nine-judge Constitution bench on February 20, 2002.
Mumbai is a densely populated city, full of old, dilapidated buildings that are unsafe due to lack of repair and yet have tenants living in them. For the repair and restoration of these buildings, the MHADA Act, 1976 imposes a cess on its occupants, which is paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which oversees the repair and reconstruction of such buildings.
There are approximately 13,000 acquired buildings in Mumbai which require renovation or reconstruction. However, their redevelopment is often delayed due to differences between tenants or between owners and tenants over appointing a developer.
,
Tags: Supreme Court
FIRST PUBLISHED: May 1, 2024, 18:03 IST