PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these cases the main challenge is to the constitutional validity of Chapter VIIIA which was inserted in 1986 in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 which, inter alia, provided for the acquisition of certain properties on payment of hundred times the monthly rent for the premises. By the said amendment, S. 1-A was also inserted in that Act and it contains a declaration that the Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) of Art. 39 of the Constitution of India. In view of Art. 31-C of the Constitution, the contention of the State was that the validity of any part of the statute on the ground that it violated Art. 14 or 19 of the Constitution, was not permissible.

(2.) The case was heard by a Bench of Three Judges. At that time on behalf of the appellants a contention was sought to be raised, inter alia, to the effect that Art. 31-C did not survive because of the events subsequent to the decision in Keshavananda Bharati's case (1973) 4 SCC 225. It was also submitted before that Bench that the doctrine of revival, as it applied to ordinary statutes, did not apply to the Constitutional Amendment and when a part of the Forty-second Amendment, which amended Art. 31-C, had been held to be invalid it did not result in the automatic revival of the unamended Art. 31-C.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid contention which was raised, by Order dated 1st May, 1996 reported in (1996) 4 SCC 49, the matter was referred to "a larger Bench of not less than five Judges for hearing and deciding these matters".