Government cannot take possession of every private property: Historic decision of the Supreme Court.

independent morning

New Delhi.

The Supreme Court says that every resource owned by an individual does not constitute a material resource merely because it meets the needs of the community. The Supreme Court today (November 5) ruled by a majority of 8:1 that all private properties cannot be part of the 'physical resources of the community' which are to be shared equally in accordance with the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39(B) of the Constitution. The State is bound to redistribute equally. The Court held that certain private properties may fall within Article 39(b) provided they are tangible and belong to the community.

The 9-judge Constitution bench included Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih. The majority opinion was written by the Chief Justice , while Justice B.V. Nagarathna agreed in part and Justice Dhulia dissented.

A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Tuesday ruled that every private property resource owned by an individual cannot be considered a “physical resource of the community” under Article 39(B) of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench, in a three-part judgment, said that private property can be a 'physical resource of the community', but not every property owned by an individual can be called a physical resource of the community. The CJI said on Tuesday, “Three The judgments are one by me and 6 others by Justice Nagarathna who partially agrees and the third by Justice Sudhanshu who disagrees.

Chief Justice D.Y. The majority judgment written by Chandrachud held that the phrase “physical resources of the community” could theoretically include privately owned resources, however, the broader view expressed by the minority judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Ranganatha Reddy case, and Sanjeev Kok The decision adopted by Justice Chinnappa Reddy in the case cannot be accepted.

The observation made in a sentence in the Mafatlal case that “material resources of the community” also includes privately owned resources is not part of the decision ratio of the decision and is not binding on the Court. CJI Chandrachud said, “The phrase may also include privately owned resources….Every resource owned by an individual cannot be considered a physical resource of the community merely because it satisfies physical needs.”

Examination of whether a resource falls within the scope of a “physical resource of the community”, considering the nature of the resource, the characteristics of the resource, the impact of the resource on the well-being of the community, the scarcity of the resource and the consequences of concentration of such resource in the hands of private players Should be based on. The public trust principle can also be applied here. The meaning of the word 'distribution' is very broad. Various forms of distribution that may be adopted by the State may include vesting of the resource in question in the State or its nationalization.

The majority judgment also said that the views expressed by Justices Krishna Iyer and Chinnappa Reddy were rooted in a particular economic ideology. The majority held that the Constitution's framers did not intend to bind the country to any particular economic principle.

The bench also unanimously held that Article 31C, to the extent it was upheld in the Keshavand Bharti case, is still applicable.

Justice Nagarathna, in his judgment, said that resources other than privately owned resources (such as jewellery, utensils, furniture, articles of daily need, etc.) could fall within the scope of the term 'material resources of the community'. Private resources can be converted into material resources of the community in the following ways: (1) nationalization; (2) acquisition; (3) operation of law; (4) Procurement by the State; (5) Donation of the owner This set of petitions was first raised in 1992 and subsequently referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002. After being in limbo for more than two decades, it has been moved to be heard in 2024. The main question to be decided is whether the material resources of the community under Article 39(b) (one of the Directive Principles of State Policy), which states that the Government shall share community resources fairly for the general interest, Policies should be made to do this, including privately owned resources.

The issue in these petitions revolves around the constitutional validity of Chapter-VIIIA, introduced in 1986 as an amendment to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA) 1976. Chapter VIIIA deals with the acquisition of specific properties, requiring payment to the State at a rate equal to one hundred times the monthly rent for the premises concerned. Section 1A of the Act, which has also been inserted through the 1986 amendment, states that the Act is designed to implement Article 39(b) of the Constitution.

The reference was to the interpretation of Article 39(b) of the Constitution. In brief, there were two judgments in State of Karnataka vs. Ranganatha Reddy and others (1978).

The judgment delivered by Justice Krishna Iyer held that the material resources of the community include all resources – natural and man-made, publicly and privately owned. In the second judgment delivered by Justice Untwalia, it was not considered necessary to express any opinion regarding Article 39(b). However, the judgment noted that the majority of judges did not agree with the approach taken by Justice Iyer with respect to Article 39(b). The view taken by Justice Iyer was confirmed by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited (1982). This was also confirmed by a decision in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

In the present case, a seven-judge bench held that this interpretation of Article 39(b) needs to be reconsidered by a bench of nine learned judges. It said – “We have some difficulty in sharing the widespread view that material resources of the community under Article 39(b) also include privately owned things.” Accordingly, the case was referred to a nine-judge bench in 2002. given.

This decision of the Constitution Bench of ⁠9 judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Property Owners Association vs. State of Maharashtra (CA No. 1012/2002) and other related cases has overturned many decisions of the Supreme Court since 1978. Now the final decision has come on this decades old dispute. The Supreme Court has overturned post-1978 decisions that adopted a socialist theme and held that the government could take over all private property for the common good.

The Supreme Court said that in the 1960s and 70s there was a tendency towards a socialist economy, but from the 1990s onwards the focus shifted towards a market-oriented economy. The direction of India's economy is away from any particular type of economy, but rather aims at To face the emerging challenges of developing countries.

The judgment stated that reference to the broader legislative interpretation was not required. It is clear from the text of the Constitution that the intention of Parliament by including Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment was to include the power of the legislature. In view of the clear intention of Parliament it can be seen that there was no intention to repeal this term. Non-amendment of Article 31C revived.