News Brief
Can Private Property Be Considered 'Material Resources Of Community'? Supreme Court's Nine-Judge Bench Set To Decide: All About The Case
The Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (23 April) commenced hearing on the issue whether private property can be brought under “material resources of the community” which the state is called upon to distribute equally as per Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
The nine-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Abhay S Oka, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Ujjal Bhuyan, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, is hearing the case.
Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India places an obligation on “The State” to create policy towards securing “that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good”.
This provision falls under Part IV of the Constitution titled “Directive Principles of State Policy”, which are meant to be guiding principles for the enactment of laws, but are not directly enforceable against citizens.
This case stems from a multi-decade long resistance from private landowners in Mumbai against the Maharashtra state government’s multiple attempts to take over dilapidated properties for restoration purposes.
In 1986, the Maharashtra state government amended the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
The amendment allowed the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority to take over cessed properties if 70 percent residents gave their approval to restore the property.
The petitioners, a collective of more than 20,000 landowners filed their earliest set of petitions in 1986, after which the case went through the judicial process.
They argued that “Landowner’s right to property is a fundamental right and it [can] not be suspended".
At the Supreme Court, the central question became whether “material resources of the community” as per Article 39(b) includes privately owned resources — which would include cessed buildings.
In February 2002, a seven-judge bench noted the court’s decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs Union of India (1997) where a nine-judge bench held that Article 39(b) covers privately owned resources as well.
The seven judge bench, taking note of this decision, stated “we have some difficulty in sharing the broad view that material resources of the community under Article 39(b) covers what is privately owned", and referred the challenge to Chapter VIII-A of the MHADA to a nine-judge bench.
The nine-judge bench of the apex court is now hearing the case.
A major development occurred in 2019 when the state assembly amended the law again.
Deadlines were set for landowners to restore property, failing which the state government would take over the property.
While the measure was put forward as welfarist by the State, for years landowners have suggested a malicious intent on behalf of the state, of taking away property and giving it to wealthy contractors.
