Governments cannot take over every private property: Supreme Court
##News Bureau, November 5,2024
Can the government take over any private property it wants? At least this will not happen now. The Supreme Court has given such a decision on Tuesday. A bench of 9 judges of the Supreme Court, while giving a historic decision, said that the government cannot acquire every private property. This decision has affected the citizens’ right to own property. The government has been acquiring any private property till now ‘in the interest of the common people’.
The Supreme Court said on Tuesday, ‘Under Article 39 (B) of the Constitution, every private property cannot be called community property. The government can consider only certain resources as community resources and use them in the interest of the common people.’ The Constitution Bench of 9 judges has overturned many decisions of the Supreme Court from 1978 till now
A nine-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud had reserved its verdict in the private property case after hearing on May 1 this year. CJI DY Chandrachud said, ‘There are three judgments, mine and six judges’… Justice Nagarathna’s partial concurrence and Justice Dhulia’s dissent. We believe that Article 31C remains intact to the extent it was upheld in the Kesavananda Bharati case.’
CJI DY Chandrachud overturned the decisions after 1978, which adopted the socialist idea. Earlier decisions said that the government can take possession of all private properties for the welfare of the common people. The CJI, writing the majority decision of seven judges, said that all private properties are not physical resources and hence cannot be taken over by the governments.
“Material resources under Article 39(b) of the Constitution may include privately owned resources but not all privately owned resources are within its ambit,” the bench said.Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud wrote the majority judgment for himself and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, J. B. Pardiwala, Manoj Mishra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma and Augustine George Masih, Justice B. V. Nagarathna delivered a concurring opinion, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented.The Supreme Court verdict also overruled the 1978 Justice Krishna Iyer judgment which had held that all privately owned resources could be acquired by the state.
The Supreme Court verdict also overruled the 1978 Justice Krishna Iyer judgment which had held that all privately owned resources could be acquired by the state.
Article 39(b) of the Directive Principles of State Policy states that ‘the State shall, in particular, formulate its policy towards securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are distributed in such a manner as to give primacy to the common good’.
The Supreme Court bench was hearing 16 petitions, including the main one filed by a Mumbai-based property owners association in 1992. It has challenged Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act. According to a report, this chapter, added in 1986, gives the state government the right to acquire dilapidated buildings and land if 70% of its owners request so. This amendment was challenged by the property owners association.
The petitioner said that this amendment made in the law is discriminatory and an attempt to take over private property.
