THE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 01-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1996 
B 
IJ.S. VERMA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 : 
Ss.103A to 103M-Acquisition of properties on payment of hundred 
C times of monthly rent for the premises--Whether provisions of Chapter VIII-A 
are constitutionally valid-Matter referred to Five Judges Bench. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article 31 C-Interpretation of-Whether provisions of chapter VIII-A of 
D Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 are constitutionally 
valid-Matter refe"ed to Five Judges Bench. 
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kera/a 
and Another, [1973) Supp. S.C.R. 1; Minerva Mills Ltd. & Others v. Union 
of India and Others, [1980) 3 SCC 625; Waman Rao & Others Etc. v. Union 
E of India and Others Etc., (1980) 3 SCC 587 = (1981) 2 SCC 362 and Sanjeev 
Coke Manufacturing Company v. Mis. Bharat Coking Coal Limited and 
Another, (1983) 1 SCC 147, referred to. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
No. 5302 of 1992 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.12.91 of the Bombay High 
Court in W .P. No. 2673 of 1986. 
Soli J. Sorabjee, Anil B. Diwan, VA. Bobde, V.A. Mohta, Ashok 
Desai, P.H. Parekh, AS. Bhasme, U.A. Rana, M.N. Shroff, P. Narsimhan, 
G V.K. Jain, M. Karanjawala, P.N. Gupta, J.S. Wad, A.M. Kanwilkar, S.R. 
Setia, K.V. Sreekumar for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
One of the main questions for decision in these matters pertains to 
H the constitutional validity of Chapter VIII-A inserted in 1986 in the 
230 
PROPERTY OWNERS'.ASSN. v. STATE 
231 
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter A 
referred to as "the MHADA Act") providing for the acquisition of certain 
properties on payment of hundred times the monthly rent for the premises. 
These properties are mainly the buildings which were first let out prior to 
the year 1940 on monthly rent which, the owners claim, is a measly amount 
for the current value of the property in Bombay and the present value of B 
the rupee. Section IA was also inserted in the MHADA Act in 1986 and 
it contains a declaration that this Act is for giving effect to the policy of 
the State towards securing the principle specified in clause (b) of Article 
39 of the Constitution of India. Article 31C of the Constitution is, therefore, 
attracted for excluding the attack to the validity of the enactment on the 
grounds of Article 14 or Article 19 of the Constitution. 
C 
In order to circumvent the effect of Article 31C of the Constitution, 
Shri F.S. Nariman, learned counsel for the petitioners contended 'inter a/ia' 
that Article 31C does not survive because of the events subsequent to the 
decision in Kesavanando Bharati. Shri Ashok Desai, learned counsel for D 
the respondents replied to those arguments by contending that Article 31C 
as originally enacted minus the later part which was declared to be uncon- ·· 
stitutional in His Holiness Kesavananda B/iuruti Sripadagalavaru v\state of-
Kerala and Another, (1973) Supp. S.C.R. 1, as it was upheld inMinerVa Mills 
Ltd. and Others v. Union of l11dia·a11d Others, (1980) 3 SCC 625, eicludes 
any attack to the constitutional validity of the enactment. Both the learned E 
counsel have submitted a synopsis of the rival contentions in the form of 
their written submissions which are taken on record and, therefore, need 
not be reiterated in this order. 
A brief history of Article 31C would help to appreciate the rival F 
contentions. Article 31C, as originally. enacted, was inserted in the Con-
stitution of India with effect from April 20, 1972 by Section 3 of the 
Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971. The constitutional 
validity of Article 31C was examined inKesavw101ula Bharoti (supra) which 
was decided on 24.4.1973. At page 1001 of S.C.R., the conclusions the 
majority opinion are summarised wherein conclusion No. (5) is that the G 
second part of Article 31C, namely, "and no law containing a declaration 
that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any 
court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy" was declared 
to be invalid, while the rest of Article 31C was upheld as valid. Thereafter, 
with effect from 3.1.1977 by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) H 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.