Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.: - These appeals by the State of Maharashtra arise out of a judgment dated February 8, 1980 of the. High Court of Bombay in a group of writ petitions which were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. By those wirt petitions, the petitioners, who. respondents herein, challenged the validity of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation, and Summary Eviction) Act, LXVI of 1975 and the legality of certain orders passed thereunder. We will refer to the aforesaid Act as "the Act". The Act replaced an ordinance, bearing a similar title, which was promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra on November 11, 1975. The Act was amended twice, first by Act No. XXXVII of 1976 and then by Act No. VII of 1977. We will refer to these two Acts as the First Amendment Act and the Second Amendment Act.

2. Several writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court to challenge the validity of the Act and the orders passed under it; the facts being broadly of the same pattern. In order to understand the nature of the controversy in these appeals, it would be sufficient for our purpose to set out the facts in one of those petitions, namely, Writ Petition No. 1340 of 1977. The petitioners in that petition are the owners of a plot of land which is part of survey No. 154, Bandra, Greater Bombay, admeasuring about 1100 square meters. Though the petitioners had obtained possession of the plot in about 1964 under an agreement of sale, they became owners thereof under a. deed of sale dated September 20, 1974. The plot is assessed to non-agricultural assessment and to property tax by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. There are four chawls consisting of 21 one-room tenements and a two-storeyed building having four rooms on each floor on the plot. These buildings were constructed by the petitioners between 1964 and 1970. The two storeyed structure is in the occupation of the petitioners while the one-room tenements have been let out by them. These structures having been put up by the petitioners without the requisite permission, the Bombay Municipal Corporation called upon them to demolish the same. Thereupon, the owners of various plots of land comprised in Survey No. 154 formed an Association through which, they requested the Standing Committee of the Bombay Municipal Corporation to regularise the constructions. The Association was, however, informed that its request could not be granted because, the Government was considering a proposal for the acquisition of the land for the purpose of an industrial estate. The Association then approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting that the land be released from acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer informed the Association that Survey No. 154 had been released from acquisition by a notification dated September 14. 1964.

3. It would appear from the contentions of the petitioners in the. aforesaid writ petition that there are two main tarred roads, two tarred by-lanes, two Municipal Primary Schools, one High School and one Municipal dispensary in the area comprised in plot No. 154. Besides, the head office of the Central Consumer Co-operative Society is also situated in one of the buildings situated on that plot of land. The structures standing on the plot are alleged to be of a permanemt nature. In any event, it seems clear that they are provided with essential civic amenities like water and electricity. The land belonging to the petitioners was declared by the Competent Authority as "Vacant Land" in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S. 2(f)(b) of the Act.

4. The constitutionality of the Act was challenged by the respondents on the ground that it violates the fundamental rights conferred upon them by Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 51 of the Constitution, that the State Legislature lacked the legislative competence to pass the Act and that, the Act delegated excessive and uncanalised powers to the Executive to pass orders under its provisio