Judgments

SHANTISTAR BUILDERS VS NARAYAN KHIMALAL TOTAME : CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990)1SCC520  held that right to reasonable residence is included in right to life under Article 21.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1979, urban agglomerations have been divided into four classes and a ceiling has been provided for each classification. Section 10 of the Act provided that the vacant land in excess of the ceiling vests in the State by way of acquisition and the vacant sites thus acquired by the State are intended to be utilized for purposes of housing. There was provision for treating land in excess of ceiling limit not as excess if such land was to be used for creating dwelling houses for weaker sections.

It was the case of the aggrieved persons that the builder had violated the conditions imposed in the order of exemption. The need of the weaker sections of society was not being attended to and a big racket had been formed by the real estate speculators to eliminate the economically weaker sections and persons genuinely in need of housing accommodation and to make unauthorized and illegal profit out of such transactions. Respondents also challenged the sanction of escalation of price following the demand of the builder and alleged that the legislative purpose of according exemption have been departed from. Respondents also claimed that applications from genuine persons belonging to the economically weaker sections have been overlooked and persons not entitled to the benefit have been registered by the builders.

FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court observed that basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three – food, clothing and shelter. The right to life is guaranteed in any civilized society. That would take within its sweep the right to food, the right to clothing, the right to decent environment and a reasonable accommodation to live in. The difference between the need of an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. For the animal, it is the bare protection of the body, for a human being it has to be a suitable accommodation which would allow him to grow in every aspect – physical, mental and intellectual. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable but a reasonable home particularly for people in India it can even be mud-built thatched house or mud-built fire-proof accommodation.

The Supreme Court further observed that with the increase of population and the shift of the rural masses to urban areas over  decades the ratio of poor people without houses in the urban areas has rapidly increased. This is a feature which has become more perceptible after independence. Apart from the fact that people in search of work move to urban agglomerations, availability of amenities and living conveniences also attract people to move from rural areas to cities. Industrialization is equally responsible for concentration of population around industries. These are features which are mainly responsible for increase in the homeless urban population. Millions of people today live on the pavements of different cities of India and a greater number lived animal like existence in jhuggis.

The Supreme Court held that since a reasonable residence is an indispensable necessity for fulfilling the Constitutional goal in the matter of development of man and should be taken as included in “life” in Article 21, greater social control is called for and exemption granted under the Act should have to be appropriately monitored to have the fullest benefit of the beneficial legislation.

The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to prescribe appropriate guidelines laying down true scope of the term “weaker sections of the society” so that everyone charged with administering the statute would find it convenient to implement the same.  The Supreme Court also issued certain guidelines to State of  Maharastra.

________________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *