Achi news desk-
- Hindi News
- National
- Maharashtra Mhada Case, Supreme Court Considers Whether Private Property Is a Material Community Resource or Not
New Delhi15 days ago
- link copy
A 32-year-old petition is being heard in the Supreme Court. The petition concerns the rights of any community or organization on private property. A Constitution bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court headed by CJI DY Chandrachud is hearing this case.
Earlier, a bench of three members and seven members had heard this case.
In fact, Maharashtra government has made a law to acquire old unsafe and dilapidated buildings. This law was made because tenants do not move out of these buildings and landlords do not have money for repairs.
Hearing the case, CJI Chandrachud said – These are independently owned institutions. We do not comment on principles of law. Nor has it been investigated. The bench considers whether private property can be considered ‘physical resources of the community’ under Article 39(B) of the Constitution.
Explaining the difference between ownership in a community and ownership by an individual, the CJI said – mines may be private, but they are the material resources of the community. These populated buildings in Mumbai are dilapidated and tenants live in these unsafe buildings. Because of these reasons, the risk of human injury always remains.
There are many such buildings in Maharashtra which have become dilapidated. Landlords are not being repaired because the tenants are not ready to leave.
Old decisions on private property
The Solicitor General of the Government of Maharashtra, Tushar Mehta said:- The question of interpretation of Article 39 (B) was before the court. Not Article 31C, the validity of which existed before the 25th Constitutional Amendment in 1971. This has been confirmed by a bench of 13 judges in the Kesavanand Bharti case.
CJI Chandrachud gave the example of Mafatlal Industries in the year 1997. He said- In this case, the Supreme Court had suggested that Article 39 (B) needs to be interpreted by a bench of 9 judges. In the Mafatlal case, the Supreme Court had said that it was difficult to accept the view that things in private ownership came within the material resources of the community under Article 39(B).
Know what Article 39(B) of the Constitution is
Article 39(B) of the Constitution provides that the State will direct its policy towards ensuring that ‘the ownership and management of the material resources of the community are distributed in such a way as best suits the general welfare ‘.
What is Maharashtra government law?
To repair the buildings, the Maharashtra Housing and District Development Authority (MHADA) imposes a moratorium on the people living in these houses under the Act of 1976. This is paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which repairing these buildings.
The MHADA Act was amended in the year 1986 by introducing the obligation under Article 39(B). Section 1A was added, which related to the implementation of plans for the acquisition of land and buildings so that they could be transferred to needy people.
Chapter VIII-A in the amended MHADA law (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act) provides that the state government can acquire occupied buildings and the land on which they are built, if 70 percent of the residents ask for that.
Land owners have filed a petition
Land owners have filed several petitions against the Maharashtra government’s law. The Property Owners Association has claimed that this law discriminates against owners. Their right to equality under Article 14 is violated. This main petition was presented in the year 1992.
