In a recent judicial proceeding, the Supreme Court scrutinized the legislative efforts of the Maharashtra government aimed at acquiring old and dilapidated buildings, known as “cessed properties,” under a state law. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud presided over a nine-judge constitution bench tasked with deliberating on whether privately owned resources could be deemed “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, a component of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
CJ Chandrachud acknowledged the challenges faced by the Maharashtra government in addressing the issue of unsafe buildings inhabited by tenants reluctant to vacate, coupled with landlords lacking the financial means for repairs. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act, 1976, instituted a cess on occupants of such buildings, channeled to the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB) for building restoration. Subsequent amendments to the MHADA Act empowered the state to acquire cessed buildings and their land under certain conditions, with the intent to transfer ownership to those in need.
The constitutionality of Chapter VIII-A of the MHADA Act, which facilitates the acquisition of cessed properties, has been challenged by the Property Owners Association (POW), contending discrimination against owners and violation of their right to equality under Article 14. The legal scrutiny of this matter, spanning several petitions over the years, culminated in the formation of a nine-judge bench to address the complex constitutional issues involved.
CJ Chandrachud underscored the broader societal implications of private properties, emphasizing the importance of considering the communal interest in safeguarding public safety and welfare. He cited the deteriorating condition of buildings in Mumbai, exacerbated by adverse weather conditions, as a compelling reason for legislative intervention. The bench further deliberated on the concept of “material resources of the community,” affirming the community’s vested interest in the preservation and development of essential infrastructure.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Maharashtra government, highlighted the central question before the court regarding the interpretation of Article 39(b) and its applicability to privately owned resources. Additionally, he underscored the constitutional validity of Article 31-C, a provision relevant to the implementation of DPSPs, as upheld in the landmark Kesavananda Bharati case.
As the legal discourse unfolds, the Supreme Court’s deliberations hold significant implications for property rights, public welfare, and the balance between individual ownership and communal interests.
For more updates follow our Whatsapp 
and Telegram Channel 
