ORDER

One of the main questions for decision in these matters pertains to the constitutional validity of Chapter VIII-A inserted in 1986 in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the MHADA Act") providing for the acquisition of certian properties on payment of hundred times the monthly rent for the premises. These properties are mainly the buildings which were first let out prior to the year 1940 on monthly rent which, the owners claim, is a measly amount for the current value of the property in Bombay and the present value of the rupee. Section 1A was also inserted in the MHADA Act in 1986 and it contains a declaration that this Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principle specified in clause (b) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. Article 31C of the Constitution is, therefore, attracted for excluding the attack to the validity of the enactment on the grounds of Article 14 or Article 19 of the Constitution.

2. In order to circumvent the effect of Article 31C of the Constitution, Shri F.S. Nariman, learned counsel for the petitioners contended inter alia that Article 31C does not survive because of the events subsequent to the decision in Kesavananda Bharati. Shri Ashok Desai, learned counsel for the respondents replied to those arguments by contending that Article 31C as originally enacted minus the later part which was declared to be unconstitutional in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala and Another1, as it was upheld in Minerva Mills Ltd. and Others v. Union of India and Others2, excludes any attack to the constitutional validity of the enactment. Both the learned counsel have submitted a synopsis of the rival contentions in the form of their written submissions which are taken on record and, therefore, need not be reiterated in this order.

3. A brief history of Article 31C would help to appreciate the rival contentions. Article 31C, as originally enacted, was inserted in the Constitution of India with effect from April 20, 1972 by Section 3 of the Constitution (Twenty-fifth Amendment) Act, 1971. The constitutional validity of Article 31C was examined in Kesavananda Bharati (supra) which was decided on 24.4.1973. At page 1001 of S.C.R., the conclusions of the majority opinion are summarised wherein conclusion No. (5) is that the second part of Article 31C, namely, "and no law containing a declaration that it is for giving effect to such policy shall be called in question in any court on the ground that it does not give effect to such policy" was declared to be invalid, while the rest of Article 31C was upheld as valid. Thereafter, with effect from 3.1.1977 by the Constitution (Forthy-second Amendment) Act, 1976, Section 4, for the words "the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of Article 39", the words "all or any of the principles laid down in Part IV" were substituted. Then on 15.5.1978, Bill No.88 of 1978 was introduced in the Parliament wherein Clause 8 was to amend Article 31C to restore it to the position prior to its amendment by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, in the form as it stood as a result of the decision in Kesavananda Bharati (supra). However, Clause 8 of the Bill was dropped after the debate in the Parliament and this attempt of the Parliament was abortive. Then came the decision in Minerva Mills (supra). The operative part of the order in Minerva Mills was pronounced on 9.5.1980 and the reasons for the same were pronounced on 31.7.1980. The basis on which the decision is respect of Article 31C was rendered in Minerva Mills is indicated in para 24 as under :

"The next question which we have to consider is whether the amendment made by Section 4 of the 42nd Amendment to Article 31-C of the Constitution is valid. Mr. Palkhivala did not challenge the validity of the unamended Article 31-C, and indeed that could not be done. The unamended Article