Real estate: 'State cannot acquire all privately owned resources': SC on private property ownership 

Private property: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a significant ruling in the real estate sector, stating that while the State can claim ownership of resources that are essential for public welfare and held collectively by the community, it does not have the authority to acquire all privately owned resources. This landmark judgment, which overturned a previous ruling from 1978, is likely to redefine the extent of government control over private property. 

In 1978, Justice Krishna Iyer's ruling established that the Centre could nationalise and redistribute all private property. In the 1978 ruling, the court had referenced Karl Marx, and its ruling was based on the socialist ideology prevailing at that time. It emphasized that India should not be confined to a singular economic theory.

Article 39(b) of the Constitution states that the State shall direct policy to ensure "ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to sub-serve the common good".

The decision on Tuesday was passed by a majority of the 9-judge bench in the Supreme Court. The panel of Justices Hrishikesh Roy, B V Nagarathna, J B Pardiwala, Sudhanshu Dhulia, Manoj Misra, Rajesh Bindal, Satish Chandra Sharma, and Augustine George Masih issued three rulings.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) penned a decision for himself and six other judges regarding the classification of private properties as "material resources of the community" under Article 39(b) of the Constitution. This ruling explores the possibility of such properties being seized by State authorities to promote the "common good".

On Tuesday, CJI DY Chandrachud stated: "All private properties are not material resources. Hence, it cannot be taken over by states."

During the case, Justice BV Nagarathna expressed a different opinion from the CJI, while Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia dissented. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that it would be unfair to criticise judges from the past for holding specific viewpoints at a different period in history.