Governments cannot acquire every private property, rules Supreme Court
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK Advertisement New Delhi, Nov 5: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on…
THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, Nov 5: A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment on Tuesday with a majority verdict that not all private property can be considered community property and governments can designate only certain resources as community resources to use them in the public interest.
Led by DY Chandrachud, the bench ruled by a 7:2 majority. The bench included CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Hrishikesh Roy, BV Nagarathna, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JB Pardiwala, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih.
“Private property may form ‘material resource of community’, but not every resource owned by an individual can be said to be material resource of community,” the bench stated.
Writing on behalf of himself and six other judges, the CJI tackled the challenging legal question of whether private property could qualify as “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b), allowing State authorities to assume control for the “common good.”
Also Read- Jharkhand Polls: Impact of caste equations, rebel candidates in Latehar
Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the majority opinion written by the CJI, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed full dissent on all points.
The bench had reserved its judgment six months ago after hearing arguments from several lawyers, including Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Tushar Mehta. The bench overturned a previous decision by Justice Krishna Iyer, which stated that state governments could acquire all private properties.
The CJI described the previous ruling as being influenced by specific economic and socialist ideologies. He also stated that state governments could claim resources that are tangible and held by the community for public welfare.
The bench heard 16 petitions, including a key petition filed in 1992 by the Property Owners Association (POA) based in Mumbai. The POA had opposed Chapter VIII-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act (MHADA).
