Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. In the case of K. T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in the context of Article 300A of the Constitution, referred to the twin aspects of public purpose and compensation, concerning the right to property and held that a law or a Rule depriving a person of a property, is amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court in the said judgement, examined as to whether there was a requirement of payment of compensation as a rule, after deletion of Article 31(2) of the Constitution, in the context of right to property under Article 300A. The relevant discussion in the said judgement is as follows:

30. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the respondents cannot refute the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, only on the ground that right to property is no longer a fundamental right and that it is now merely a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution.

31. But, before examining as to whether the said Rule qualifies as 'law' to come to the rescue of the respondents to claim that the impugned action being with authority of law, does not violate Article 300A of the Constitution, it would be appropriate to first deal with WP_5838_10 & ors.doc the contention raised on their behalf that in the present case, there is no acquisition or taking over of the land concerning open spaces, but it is merely taking over of management of the open spaces by exercising police powers. In order to test the said contention, it is necessary to examine the impugned declarations published on behalf of the respondent - PMC in the newspapers that led to the petitioners rushing to this Court.

37. Thus, we find that the land owner/society of plot holders in such layouts, continue to have rights in the land concerning open spaces and when the planning authority or the municipal body takes over such lands, the question of payment of compensation or deprivation of such rights, clearly arises for consideration. As noted hereinabove, in the case of K. T. Plantation Private Limited and another vs. State of Karnataka (supra), the constitution bench of the Supreme Court clearly held that just, fair and reasonable compensation has to be paid. This has to be appreciated in the backdrop of the position of law recognized by the Supreme Court in various cases, including in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others , (2013) 1 SCC 353, reiterated in the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz and others vs. Government of Karnataka and others (supra). In the said judgement, the Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, was indeed a 'human right' and also emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts ought to adopt a pro-active role, so as to ensure that the valuable right under Article 300A of the Constitution, is protected.

38. It is also significant to note that this Court, while dealing with an identical Rule, in the case of Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), held that such a Rule violated Article 300A of the Constitution. It is significant to note that apart from the argument pertaining to violation of Article 300A of the Constitution, in the said case also, it was specifically argued that an identically worded bye-law referred to a statutory provision concerning new streets, with no reference to open spaces. In such a WP_5838_10 & ors.doc factual backdrop and while analysing an identically worded bye-law, this Court held in favour of the petitioner therein. It would be appropriate to refer to the said bye-law and the relevant portion from the aforesaid judgement. Bye-law 14.3 of the Standardised Building Bye-laws and Development Control Rules, framed under the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, reads as follows: