New Delhi: The Maharashtra government came up with a law to acquire old and dilapidated buildings which were unsafe as tenants were occupying the properties and landlords did not have money for repairs, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. Investigating whether privately owned resources could do this. B are considered "the material resources of the community".
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made the comments while hearing several petitions filed by landlords against the Maharashtra law.
He is heading a nine-judge Constitution bench that is considering the complex question arising from petitions on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(B) of the Constitution , which is part of the instruction. Principles of State Police (DPSP).Article 39(b) mandates the State to make policy to ensure that "ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to best serve the common good".
Mumbai is a densely populated city filled with old, dilapidated buildings that are unsafe for use due to lack of repair, despite tenants living in them. To repair and restore these buildings, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, 1976 imposes a cess on its occupants, which is paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which repairs them. and oversees reconstruction. Equipment buildings".
Invoking the obligation under Section 39(B), the MHADA Act was amended in 1986 by introducing Section 1A to transfer land to those in need and to execute schemes for acquiring land and buildings in possession of such land or buildings. Was included in the Act for.The amended law contains Chapter VIII-A which allows state governments to acquire acquired buildings and the land on which they are built if 70 per cent of the occupiers so request.
The Property Owners Association has challenged Chapter VIII-A, claiming that these provisions discriminate against owners and violate their right to equality under Article 14.
16 petitions, including the main petition filed by Mumbai-based Property Owners Association (POW), were heard by the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Mano Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra. Sharma and Augustine George Masih. The main petition was filed by the POW in 1992 and was referred to larger benches of five and seven judges thrice before being sent to a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.The CJI noted the difference between a case of a private individual as opposed to ownership in the community. Citing the example of private mines, he said, "They may be private mines. But in the broader sense, these are physical resources of the community. The title may be held by a private person but for the purpose of Article 39(b), our The study should not be limited but there should be a comprehensive understanding.”
“Take a case like these buildings in Mumbai.Technically, you are right that these are privately owned buildings, but what was the reason for the law (MHAD Act)... We are not commenting on the legality or validity of the law, it will be tested independently," he said. The CJI said. Justice Chandrachu said, "The reason the state legislature brought this (Act) was that these are old buildings of the 1940s... These buildings have become dilapidated due to the salty weather, with a kind of monsoon in Mumbai. -Becomes tired."
He particularly mentioned the modest rents paid by tenants living in these old buildings in Mumbai.
"Because, honestly, the fact that the rent was so low that the landlord said no, they really didn't have any money to do their repairs at all... and (the tenants) were sitting tight, no did not have the means to repair the entire structure and so the legislature came (with the Act),'' the CJI said. Elaborating on the phrase 'physical resources of the community', the bench said that the community has a vital interest, And if a building collapses, the community is directly affected.There are approximately 13,000 derelict buildings in Mumbai that require renovation or reconstruction.
However, their redevelopment is often delayed due to differences among tenants or between owners and tenants over the appointment of a developer. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, told the bench that "the only issue that 9- The question that has been referred to a larger bench of judges is whether the expression 'material resources of the community' under Article 39(b) covers privately owned resources or not."
The top law officer also said, "It is clear that the unamended Article 31-C, to the extent upheld by the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharti case, is valid."
The historically acclaimed 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment on the "substantive structure" doctrine had curtailed the enormous power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and also empowered the judiciary to review the amendments.At the same time, the 1973 judgment also upheld the constitutionality of the provision of Article 31-C, which contained that amendments to implement the DPSP, if they do not affect the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, are subject to judicial review. Will not be subject. ,
The hearing remained inconclusive and will resume on Wednesday.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made the comments while hearing several petitions filed by landlords against the Maharashtra law.
He is heading a nine-judge Constitution bench that is considering the complex question arising from petitions on whether private properties can be considered "material resources of the community" under Article 39(B) of the Constitution , which is part of the instruction. Principles of State Police (DPSP).Article 39(b) mandates the State to make policy to ensure that "ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to best serve the common good".
Mumbai is a densely populated city filled with old, dilapidated buildings that are unsafe for use due to lack of repair, despite tenants living in them. To repair and restore these buildings, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, 1976 imposes a cess on its occupants, which is paid to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which repairs them. and oversees reconstruction. Equipment buildings".
Invoking the obligation under Section 39(B), the MHADA Act was amended in 1986 by introducing Section 1A to transfer land to those in need and to execute schemes for acquiring land and buildings in possession of such land or buildings. Was included in the Act for.The amended law contains Chapter VIII-A which allows state governments to acquire acquired buildings and the land on which they are built if 70 per cent of the occupiers so request.
The Property Owners Association has challenged Chapter VIII-A, claiming that these provisions discriminate against owners and violate their right to equality under Article 14.
16 petitions, including the main petition filed by Mumbai-based Property Owners Association (POW), were heard by the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Mano Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra. Sharma and Augustine George Masih. The main petition was filed by the POW in 1992 and was referred to larger benches of five and seven judges thrice before being sent to a nine-judge bench on February 20, 2002.The CJI noted the difference between a case of a private individual as opposed to ownership in the community. Citing the example of private mines, he said, "They may be private mines. But in the broader sense, these are physical resources of the community. The title may be held by a private person but for the purpose of Article 39(b), our The study should not be limited but there should be a comprehensive understanding.”
“Take a case like these buildings in Mumbai.Technically, you are right that these are privately owned buildings, but what was the reason for the law (MHAD Act)... We are not commenting on the legality or validity of the law, it will be tested independently," he said. The CJI said. Justice Chandrachu said, "The reason the state legislature brought this (Act) was that these are old buildings of the 1940s... These buildings have become dilapidated due to the salty weather, with a kind of monsoon in Mumbai. -Becomes tired."
He particularly mentioned the modest rents paid by tenants living in these old buildings in Mumbai.
"Because, honestly, the fact that the rent was so low that the landlord said no, they really didn't have any money to do their repairs at all... and (the tenants) were sitting tight, no did not have the means to repair the entire structure and so the legislature came (with the Act),'' the CJI said. Elaborating on the phrase 'physical resources of the community', the bench said that the community has a vital interest, And if a building collapses, the community is directly affected.There are approximately 13,000 derelict buildings in Mumbai that require renovation or reconstruction.
However, their redevelopment is often delayed due to differences among tenants or between owners and tenants over the appointment of a developer. At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, told the bench that "the only issue that 9- The question that has been referred to a larger bench of judges is whether the expression 'material resources of the community' under Article 39(b) covers privately owned resources or not."
The top law officer also said, "It is clear that the unamended Article 31-C, to the extent upheld by the judgment in the Kesavananda Bharti case, is valid."
The historically acclaimed 1973 Kesavananda Bharati judgment on the "substantive structure" doctrine had curtailed the enormous power of Parliament to amend the Constitution and also empowered the judiciary to review the amendments.At the same time, the 1973 judgment also upheld the constitutionality of the provision of Article 31-C, which contained that amendments to implement the DPSP, if they do not affect the 'basic structure' of the Constitution, are subject to judicial review. Will not be subject. ,
The hearing remained inconclusive and will resume on Wednesday.
