PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1012/2002
Decision Date: 05-11-2024
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC835

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, B.V. NAGARATHNA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, RAJESH BINDAL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Issue for Consideration (1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and whether the phrase ‘material resources 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 12024 INSC 835Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, HRISHIKESH ROY*, B.V. NAGARATHNA*, SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, RAJESH BINDAL, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIHIssue for Consideration (1) Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati case) survives in the Constitution after amendment to forty-second amendment was struck down by the Supreme Court in Minerva Mills case; and (2) Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy case and followed in Sanjeev Coke case must be reconsidered; and whether the phrase ‘material resources