Read Time: 04 minutes
"All private property is not covered by the phrase material resources of the community...", the top court has said.
The Supreme Court of India's 9-judge bench today by a majority of 8:1 has held that not every resource of an individual can be considered the material resources of the community.
"There is a distinction between holding that private property may form part of the wealth of the community's material resources and it is wholly part of the community's wealth. The provision indicates that not all privately owned properties fall within its ambit...", the Chief Justice of India observed today regarding Article 39(b).
Justice BV Nagarathna has penned a separate but concurring judgment, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia has dissented.
In April this year a 9-judge bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, SC Sharma and AG Masih had started hearing a case to determine whether private property falls within the ambit of Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
CJI had then remarked that court cannot adhere to Marxian interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution of India that says a community's "material resources" would include private properties for reallocation. "We cannot say Article 39(b) has no application to privately held properties like water, forests and mines. But it should not be taken to the level of taking someone's personal property for distribution", CJI Chandrachud had said.
Article 39(b) which is a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy deals with distribution of “material resources of the community” to “best subserve the common good.”
In the case before court, the constitution bench heard a challenge to Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976(MHADA). This provision allowed the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) to acquire certain “cessed properties” for restoration purposes with the consent of 70 percent of the residents.
It has been claimed by the petitioners challenging the provisions under MHADA that it conferred untethered power on MBRRB to forcibly take possession of residential complexes.
Case Title: Property Owners Association vs. State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
