STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. versus BASANTIBAL MOHANLAL KHETAN & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 13-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

') 
r 
i. 
~. 
·~·· 
F 
,, 
707 
S'l:/ITE OF MAllARASIITRA & ANR, 
v. 
BASAllTlBAl MOHANLAL KHETAN & ORS. 
MARCH 13, 1986 
[E,S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ,] 
Maharashtra 
Housing 
and 
Development 
Act, 
1976 
(Maharashtra Act XXVIIl of 1977), sub-sections 3 & 4 of 
section 44, Constitutional validity of - Whether infringes the 
provisions of Articles 14, 
19, 21, 
31 
and 300A. of the 
Constitution - Whether provisions of section 44(3) and (4) are 
protected by Article 3l(c) of the Constitution. 
One Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan was the owner of a piece 
of land measuring 3. 98, 60 hectares bearing Survey No. .28 at 
village Bhuahi in Maval Taluka 
of 
Pune 
District having 
purchased it under the sale deed dated january 18, 1966, The 
aaid land is, however, situated within the Dllnicipal limits of 
Lonavala town. Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan died on May 18, 1976 
leaving behind him his widow, respondent No. 1, and children 
respondents Nos. 2 to 5, as his heirs. In order to provide 
housing accomoodation to economically weaker aectiona and to 
persons belonging to low income group and middle income group 
residing within Lonavala Dllnicipal limits and at the request 
of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, a 
notice was published by the State Government under the proviso 
to section 41(1) of the Maharashtra Housing and Development 
Act, 1976 in Government Gazette dated August 30, 1979 inviting 
objections to the proposed acquisition of land& including the 
land which originally belonged to Mohanlal Fakirchand Kiletan. 
Pursuant to the said notice Chandrakant l'.ohanlal Khetan, 
respondent No. 3 herein lodged his protest on September 6, 
1979. After considering the various objections received fl'Oll 
different people including the objections filed by Chandrakant 
Mohanlal Khetan on behalf of hi•elf and the other co-owners, 
the 
State 
Government 
published 
the 
notification under 
sub-section (1) of section 41 in its Gazette dated July 3, 
1980. On the publication of the said notification the land of 
Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan vested in the State Government free 
from all encumbrances. On December 12, 1980 a notice w.,; 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 l s.c.R. 
·issued under section 42(1) of the Act, to the holders of the 
lands to surrender and deliver possession of their lands to 
the Collector, Pune within a period of 30 days. In January 
1981, the legal representatives of Mohanlal Fald.rchand Khetan 
objected to the notice on the ground that Survey No. 28 of 
village Bhushi that is, the land belonging to them had not 
actually been notified in the notification published in the 
Gazette as it had been shown as lying in village Maval and not 
in village Bhushi. On discovering the error which had crept 
into the notification, on May 15, 1981 the State Government 
published a corrigendum making the requisite correction and 
thereafter issued a fresh notice on September 15, 1981 to the 
heirs of Mohanlal Fald.rchand Khetan to deliver possession of 
the land bearing Survey No. 28 of village Bhushi situated 
within the Municipal limits of Lonavala. 
The widow and 
children of Mohanlal Fakirchand Khetan, respondents herein 
filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay questioning 
the validity of proceedings leading up to 
the issue of 
notification under section 41(1) of the Act and also the 
notification. The High Court negatived all the contentions 
raised by the respondents in the writ petition except the 
conatitutionality of sub-section (3) and (4) of section 44 of 
the Act. It found that sub-section 3 and sub-section 4 of 
section 44 of the Act were unreasonable and discriminatory and 
therefore ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. It found 
that the said provisions were not protected by Article 31C of 
the Constitution and further held that the impugned provisions 
of the legislation were otherwise unfair, unjust and un-
reasonable. The High Court also found that the deprivation of 
the property under sections 41 and 42 of the Act had not been 
done by authority of law. The High Court accordingly allowed 
the writ petition. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court 
the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Housing and Area 
Development Authority have filed this appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal the Court, 
G 
Bl!LD : 1. Sub-sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra 
Houaing and Development Act, 1976 are constitutionally

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.