Can the government acquire any private property if it wants? Read the historic decision of the Supreme Court

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has said in its decision that under the Constitution, governments do not have the right to take over all the resources of private property for the common good. The constitutional bench of 9 judges led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud has given this decision by majority. In a 7:2 majority decision, the Supreme Court has said that the government can lay claim to private properties in some cases but it does not have the right to take over all privately owned resources for the common good.Justice Krishna Iyer’s bench’s decision rejected
The constitutional bench led by Chief Justice Chandrachud of the Supreme Court rejected the decision given by the bench of Justice Krishna Iyer. Justice Iyer’s bench had said in its decision that all privately owned resources can be acquired by governments for distribution under Article 39 (B) of the Constitution.

What was the question before the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court was faced with a complex legal question which the Constitutional Bench had to decide. The important question before the apex court was whether private properties can be considered as material resources of the community under Article 39(B)? Can such private properties be taken over by government officials for distribution for the benefit of the general public and can private properties be acquired for this purpose?

Socialist thinking was given preference in the earlier decision
In the decision given on Tuesday, the Supreme Court overturned all the earlier decisions in which it was said that the government can acquire all types of private properties, take possession of them and distribute them for the common good. In the earlier decision of the Supreme Court, preference was given to socialist thinking. Supreme Court Justice BV Nagarathna partially disagreed with the 7 judges in a separate decision, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia expressed his/her disagreement with all aspects of the 7 judges’ decision.

There were 16 petitions in the Supreme Court
16 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court. Which included the main petition filed by the Mumbai-based Property Owners Association (POA) in 1992. The POA has opposed Chapter 8-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) Act. This chapter, added in 1986, empowers government authorities to acquire derelict buildings and the land on which they are built, if 70 percent of the people living there request so for resettlement purposes.

The Supreme Court had pointed out the need for contemporary interpretation.
The Supreme Court had reserved its decision after hearing the case on May 1. During the hearing, there was a long debate on the main legal question whether private properties can be considered as material resources of the community under the Constitution? Can such properties be taken over by the state authority? The legal question in the case was whether private properties can be considered material resources of the community under Article 39B of the Constitution and whether the state can acquire it and make it public. Can be used for wellness?

During the hearing of the case, the Supreme Court had remarked that no private property is a material resource of the community and every private property is a material resource of the community and these two are different views. The court had said that its contemporary interpretation is needed keeping in mind privatization and national interests.