Supreme Court ruling: Can Authorities Take Over Private Property for Common Good?

A nine-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud made observations surrounding the question of whether privately-owned resources can be considered “material resources of the community”. This arose during submissions from the Property Owners Association (POA) of Mumbai, which vehemently argued that private properties cannot be taken over by state authorities under the guise of constitutional schemes.

The bench is considering the legal question arising from whether private properties can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39 (b) of the Constitution, part of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The bench acknowledged that it may be hazardous to adopt a view that ‘material resources of the community’ only refers to public resources, emphasizing that it would be dangerous to exempt private properties from governmental policies.

Referring to the social and prevalent situations when the Constitution was formulated, the bench emphasized that the Constitution aimed to bring about social transformation, and therefore, Article 39 (b) cannot be deemed inapplicable to privately held properties. The bench referenced the need for welfare measures and redistribution of wealth, and raised the issue of whether the Maharashtra law that empowers authorities to take over dilapidated buildings is valid.

It also touched upon the historical and philosophical perspectives on property, emphasizing the concept of property as something held in trust for the wider community and future generations. It highlighted the essence of Article 39 (b) as a means to bring about social transformation, and that it shouldn’t be overlooked simply because a property is privately owned.

The bench intended to address the issue pertaining to Article 31 C as well, despite opposition from the Solicitor General. The arguments were left inconclusive and were scheduled to resume on Thursday.

The text referred to Article 39 (b), making it mandatory for the State to devise policies ensuring the distribution of material resources for the common good. The bench heard 16 petitions, including the lead petition from the Property Owners Association, which has been referred to larger benches multiple times before reaching the nine-judge bench.

Note: This version has been edited for clarity and coherence.