STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. ETC. versus MRS. KAMAL SUKUMAR DURGULE AND ORS. ETC.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ETC. ETC. versus MRS. KAMAL SUKUMAR DURGULE AND ORS. ETC.

Each part of the definition of 'vacant land' in section 2(f) of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution due to irrational classification, absence of guidelines for exercise of discretion, and lack of procedural safeguards for affected persons; subsequent Rules do not cure fundamental defects; Act is not a measure of requisition and does not violate Article 31(1) or (2). State Legislature was competent to enact the Act under Entries 18, 64, and 65 of List II, but the Act is unconstitutional under Article 14.

Parties
Appellant: State of Maharashtra; Respondents: Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 November 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Decision on Writ Petitions Under Article 226
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Classification Under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f), State Legislative Competence, Unauthorised Structures, Vacant Lands, Guidelines for Exercise of Discretion, Natural Justice
Constitutional Law Property Law Classification Under Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) State Legislative Competence Unauthorised Structures Vacant Lands Guidelines for Exercise of Discretion Natural Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Maharashtra

Appellant

Mrs. Kamal Sukumar Durgule and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bombay High Court Decision on Writ Petitions Under Article 226

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, 1975 violates Articles 14, 19(1)(f), and 31 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the State Legislature was competent to enact the Act under Entries 18, 64, and 65 of List II
  3. 3 Whether the Act provides proper classification and guidelines for the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Each part of the definition of 'vacant land' in section 2(f) of the Act is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution due to irrational classification, absence of guidelines for exercise of discretion, and lack of procedural safeguards for affected persons; subsequent Rules do not cure fundamental defects; Act is not a measure of requisition and does not violate Article 31(1) or (2). State Legislature was competent to enact the Act under Entries 18, 64, and 65 of List II, but the Act is unconstitutional under Article 14.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court affirmed; Act declared violative of Article 14; costs quantified at rupees two thousand in each appeal.