Case Title: State of Karnataka V. BR Muralidhar
The Karnataka High Court's ruling that Section 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 was unconstitutional was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna's bench said that the High Court handled this matter in a cryptic manner without examining all pertinent factors that should have been taken into account by a Constitutional Court.
The bench stated, "There is a presumption about the legitimacy of the statute passed by the Parliament/State Legislature."
To address the improvement and removal of slums in the State, the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 was passed. The calculation of the sum due in relation to any land acquired under this Act is covered in Section 20 of the Act.
Several arguments were made about the legality of Section 20 before the Apex Court. The bench, however, noted:
“We are of the considered opinion that the High Court has dealt with the question of the 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 also the question: whether the payment of the 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 the 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 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 the 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.”Following this observation, the court sent the parties to the High Court for a further review of the writ petitions, including the issue of Section 20 of the 1973 Act's constitutionality.
"In the remanded proceedings, it would then be open to the writ petitioners to amend the writ petition to raise a new plea regarding the inapplicability of Section 17 to the land in question — which had not been declared as a 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 further explained that Section 20 should be granted full force until further instructions from the High Court in the remanded petitions and the declaration made by the High Court that Section 20 was ultra vires stands effaced.