Question Of Constitutional Validity Cannot Be Dealt In A Casual/Cryptic Manner: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka HC Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment which held the Section 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 as unconstitutional.The bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the High Court dealt with this issue in a cryptic manner without analyzing all relevant aspects needed to be considered by a Constitutional Court. "There is a presumption about the constitutionality of the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature.", the bench observed.Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 was enacted to provide for the improvement and clearance of slums in the State. Section 20 of the Act deals with the computation of the amount payable in respect of any land acquired under this Act.In this case, the writ petitioners before the High Court had challenged the Section 20 and also some notifications issued under the Act. The Single bench of the High Court struck down Section 20 of the Slum Areas Act as unconstitutional. According to the Single Bench, the method of determining the amount to be paid to the land losers pursuant to acquisition of land under the Act is not just and reasonable and it ought to be as per the prevailing market value of the land; and not on the basis of three hundred times the property tax payable in respect of such land, as predicated in Section 20 of the Act. The Division Bench upheld this part of the judgment of the Single Bench.Before the Apex Court, various contentions were raised regarding the validity of Section 20. However, the bench observed:We are of the considered opinion that the High Court has dealt with the question of validity of Section 20 in a casual manner. That cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the Constitutional Court for answering the assail on this count, in the first place, need to examine the scheme of the 1973 Act, its objects and purposes as also the question: whether the payment of amount specified as three hundred times the property tax payable in respect of such land on the date of publication would be a permissible method of determination of the amount or is per se unjust, unfair or unreasonable? Concededly, there can be different methods for valuation of property, including the method of capitalisation value. Further, it has to be considered as to whether it is an objective method and not illusory (as it is the case of the State that the amount determined under Section 20 is quite substantial, i.e., Rs.3.52 crore), in the present case. Additionally, if the 1973 Act and the provisions are ascribable to the objective predicated in Article 39(b) of the Constitution, then it would get protection or 17 immunity from challenge in terms of Article 14, 19 or 31 of the Constitution. Furthermore, even if the High Court was right in observing that the 1973 Act came into force prior to coming into force of 44th Amendment to the Constitution on 20.6.1979, it would make no difference as Article 31C was already in force with effect from 20.4.1972 to the extent it has been validated by this Court in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru.Observing thus, the court relegated the parties before the High Court for reconsideration of the writ petitions afresh including in relation to the question of constitutional validity of Section 20 of the 1973 Act."In the remanded proceedings, it would then be open to the writ petitioners to amend the writ petition to raise a new plea regarding inapplicability of Section 17 to the land in question — which had not been declared as slum area or slum clearance area. That question, if answered in favour of the writ petitioners, would go to the root of the matter and it may then not be necessary to even examine the question regarding the constitutional validity of Section 20 of the 1973 Act.", the court observed.The court also clarified that the declaration issued by the High Court regarding Section 20 being ultra vires stands effaced and that provision be given full effect until further orders of the High Court in the remanded petitions.Case detailsState of Karnataka vs BR Muralidhar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 637 | CA 1966 OF 2013 | 28 July 2022 | Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv KhannaHeadnotesConstitution of India, 1950 ; Article 226 - Examining Constitutional validity of legislation - There is a presumption about the constitutionality of the law made by the Parliament/State Legislature - High Court should not deal with the question of validity in a cryptic/casual manner. (Para 14-16)Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 ; Section 20 - Constitutional Validity - Karnataka High Court struck down the provision as unconstitutional, in appeal, the Supreme Court held: High Court has dealt with the question of validity of Section 20 in a casual manner. That cannot be countenanced...

Question Of Constitutional Validity Cannot Be Dealt In A Casual/Cryptic Manner: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka HC Judgment

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags