KAMLESH C. SHAH vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND URBAN LAND SECRETARY — W.P.(C) No. 342/1999

Case under 2301_3Jj-housing and Building-municipal Laws-housing and Building Permits, Slums Rehabilitation, Demolition, Encroachment/ Removal of Encroachment, Sealing and Urban Planning : Three Judge Matter Section X. Status: Pending.

Pending

CNR: SCIN010109641999

Filing Date

20-Jul-1999

Registration No

W.P.(C) No. 342/1999

Diary Number

10964/1999

Order Date

05-Nov-2024

Document Type

Judgement - of Main Case

Last updated 04-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

2301_3jj-Housing and Building-Municipal Laws-Housing and building permits, slums rehabilitation, demolition, encroachment/ removal of encroachment, sealing and urban planning : Three Judge Matter Section X

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KAMLESH C. SHAH

    Adv. AMARJIT SINGH BEDI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND URBAN LAND SECRETARY

    Adv. CHIRAG M. SHROFF NISHANT RAMAKANTRAO KATNESHWARKAR SUJATA KURDUKAR AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-1] AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-4] AADITYA ANIRUDDHA PANDE[R-5]

Case History

  1. 05-Nov-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  2. 01-May-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  3. 30-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  4. 25-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  5. 24-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  6. 23-Apr-2024

    Ordinary

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  7. 16-Apr-2024

    Not Taken Up

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Ravikumar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  8. 09-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  9. 04-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  10. 03-Apr-2024

    Fixed Date by Court

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih

  11. 12-Oct-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  12. 08-May-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 08-May-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 08-May-2017

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 17-Aug-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 17-Aug-2016

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 17-Aug-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 15-Jul-2016

    ROPView PDF

  19. 15-Jul-2016

    ROPView PDF

  20. 03-Jul-2013

    JudgmentView PDF

  21. 03-Jul-2013

    ROPView PDF

  22. 08-May-2013

    ROPView PDF

  23. 06-May-2013

    ROPView PDF

  24. 29-Apr-2013

    ROPView PDF

  25. 15-Apr-2013

    ROPView PDF

  26. 12-Apr-2013

    ROPView PDF

  27. 08-Apr-2013

    ROPView PDF

  28. 22-Mar-2013

    ROPView PDF

  29. 08-Nov-2010

    ROPView PDF

  30. 01-Oct-2010

    ROPView PDF

  31. 26-Aug-2010

    ROPView PDF

  32. 01-Apr-2010

    ROPView PDF

  33. 26-Feb-2010

    ROPView PDF

  34. 02-Feb-2010

    ROPView PDF

  35. 04-Jan-2010

    ROPView PDF

  36. 05-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  37. 19-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 29-Sep-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  39. 03-Aug-2009

    ROPView PDF

  40. 23-Apr-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 06-Mar-2009

    ROPView PDF

  42. 24-Feb-2009

    ROPView PDF

  43. 29-Jan-2009

    ROPView PDF

  44. 11-Dec-2008

    ROPView PDF

  45. 28-Nov-2008

    ROPView PDF

  46. 31-Jul-2007

    ROPView PDF

  47. 20-Apr-2007

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  48. 05-Apr-2007

    ROPView PDF

  49. 26-Feb-2007

    ROPView PDF

  50. 11-Jan-2007

    ROPView PDF

  51. 15-Dec-2006

    ROPView PDF

  52. 30-Aug-2006

    ROPView PDF

  53. 21-Aug-2006

    ROPView PDF

  54. 24-Jul-2006

    ROPView PDF

  55. 01-May-2006

    ROPView PDF

  56. 17-Apr-2006

    ROPView PDF

  57. 06-Mar-2006

    ROPView PDF

  58. 17-Feb-2006

    ROPView PDF

  59. 22-Sep-2003

    ROPView PDF

  60. 19-Feb-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  61. 06-Feb-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  62. 06-Feb-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  63. 14-Feb-2001

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  64. 02-Jan-2001

    ROPView PDF

  65. 20-Jul-1999

    Case filed

    Registration No. W.P.(C) No. 342/1999

  66. 01-Jan-1970

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  67. [ 2024 INSC 835 ]

    Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF

Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters

Lead case: C.A. No. 1012/2002

PDF 1PDF 2PDF 3PDF 4PDF 5PDF 6PDF 7PDF 8
View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P.(C) No. 342 of 1999: Property Owners' Association v. State of Maharashtra This is a nine-judge constitution bench judgment addressing two critical issues regarding Article 31-C and Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution. Key Holdings: Issue 1: Survival of Article 31-C (Chief Justice's Opinion - Agreed by Justice Nagarathna) - Held: The unamended Article 31-C, as upheld in *Kesavananda Bharati*, continues to survive after the 42nd Amendment was invalidated in *Minerva Mills* - The legislative intent to substitute (not independently repel) the old language with new language means invalidating the amendment results in restoration of the original text - Only the newly inserted language "all or any principles laid down in Part IV" was struck down; the phrase "principles specified in clauses (b) or (c) of Article 39" stands revived Issue 2: Meaning of "Material Resources of the Community" (Disputed) Chief Justice's Conclusion: - Privately owned resources CAN be included in "material resources of the community," but NOT ALL private property falls within this ambit - The phrase requires context-specific analysis considering: nature of resource, impact on community well-being, scarcity, and consequences of concentration in private hands - Observations in *Mafatlal* are obiter dicta, not binding - The minority view in *Ranganatha Reddy* followed in *Sanjeev Coke* was too expansive - Not every resource merely because it meets "material needs" qualifies as material resource of the community Justice Nagarathna's Concurring View (Different from Chief Justice): - Agrees with the Chief Justice on Article 31-C survival - Disagrees on Article 39(b) interpretation - argues privately owned resources ARE part of "material resources of the community" - Criticizes the Chief Justice for harsh remarks on the "Krishna Iyer Doctrine" - Contends the interpretation in *Ranganatha Reddy* and *Sanjeev Coke* has stood the test of time and remains valid - Emphasizes the broad, purposive interpretation necessary for welfare state objectives Justice Dhulia's Dissent (On Article 39(b)): - The phrase "material resources of the community" INCLUDES privately owned resources - Criticizes the Chief Justice's limiting approach - Argues a living constitution must evolve but within rational limits - Emphasizes inequality remains a pressing issue justifying the broad interpretation - The three-judge minority view in *Ranganatha Reddy* and five-judge unanimous view in *Sanjeev Coke* correctly interpreted the phrase - Legislative wisdom should determine distribution, not judicial categories Significance: This judgment splits on a foundational constitutional question about economic rights and state power to acquire private property for implementing welfare state objectives under the Directive Principles. The 3:1 disposition (Chief Justice + 2 others vs. Justice Dhulia, with Justice Nagarathna concurring on 31-C but diverging on 39(b)) reflects deep constitutional tensions between property rights and social welfare goals. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case