PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the main questions for decision in these matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Ch. VIII-A inserted in 1986 in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (28 of 1977) (hereinafter 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 the rupee. Section 1-A 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 Art. 39 of the Constitution of India. Article 31-C of the Constitution is, therefore, attracted for excluding the attack to the validity of the enactment on the grounds of Art. 14 or Art. 19 of the Constitution.

(2.) In order to circumvent the effect of Art. 31-C of the Constitution, Shri F.S. Nariman, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended "inter alia" that Art. 31-C does not survive because of the events subsequent to the decision in Kesavananda Bharat. Shri Ashok Desai, the learned counsel for the respondents, replied to those arguments by contending that Art. 31-C as originally enacted minus the latter part which was declared to be unconstitutional in Kesavananda Bharati V/s. State of Kerala, 1973 4 SCC 225as it was upheld in Minerva Mills Ltd. V/s. Union of India, 1980 3 SCC 625excludes any attack on the constitutional validity of the enactment. Both the learned 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.

(3.) A brief history of Art. 31-C would help to appreciate the rival contentions. Art. 31-C, as originally enacted, was inserted in the Constitution of India with effect from 20.4.1972 by Sec. 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971. The constitutional validity of Art. 31-C was examined in Kesavananda Bharati which was decided on 24.4.1973. At p. 1001 of SCR the conclusions of the majority opinion are summarised wherein conclusion No. (5) is that the second part of Art. 31-C, 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 Art. 31-C was upheld as valid. Thereafter, with effect from 3.1.1977 by the Constitution (Forty- second Amendment) Act, 1976, Sec. 4, for the words "the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Art. 39", the words "all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV" were substituted. Then on 15.5.1978, Bill No. 88 of 1978 was introduced in Parliament wherein clause 8 was to amend Art. 31-C to restore it to the position prior to its amendment by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, in the form as it stood as a result of the decision in Kesavananda Bharati. However, clause 8 of the Bill was dropped after the debate in Parliament and this attempt of Parliament was abortive. Then came the decision in Minerva Mills. The operative part of the order in Minerva Mills' was pronounced on 9.5.1980 and the reasons for the same were pronounced on 31.7.1980. The basis on which the decision in respect of Art. 31-C was rendered in Minerva Mills' is indicated in para 24 as under: