Real Estate : Latest Landmark Judgments of the Supreme Court 2024

In recent rulings, the Supreme Court has made pivotal decisions confirming and clarifying various aspects of property rights in India. These judgments address a range of issues, from the limitations on the state's power to acquire private property to the protection of ancestral property and the legal processes surrounding demolitions of illegal properties.

The Court has also provided clarity on the doctrine of adverse possession and reinforced the constitutional protection of property rights under Article 300A. These rulings highlight the Court’s commitment to ensuring fairness, transparency, and justice in property-related matters, making them worth closer examination.

Reaffirmation of Private Property Rights (November 5, 2024)

Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra.

In the case of the property owners association vs. the state of Maharashtra, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled that private property cannot be treated as a resource for the community under Article 39(b). 

In an 8:1 majority, the Court decided that not all private property can automatically be considered "material resources of the community." The decision emphasized the importance of respecting property rights and making them difficult to take away.

The Court also confirmed that Article 31C, which protects certain laws aimed at implementing Directive Principles from being challenged in court, still exists, even after the famous Minerva Mills case (1980).

The case arose because of a law in Maharashtra (MHADA Act, 1976) that allowed the government to take old buildings in Mumbai for redevelopment, but only if 70% of residents agreed. The government argued this law followed Article 39(b), but the Court reviewed this claim.

Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Decision 2024

Neelam Gupta and Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Anr.

This case involves a dispute over ownership of a piece of land. Rajendra Kumar Gupta (plaintiff) claimed he owned the land based on a sale deed from 1968, but the defendants, Ashok and Rakesh Kumar Gupta, argued they had been using the land for over 12 years and thus had acquired it through adverse possession. 

The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, stating that the defendants had possessed the land for more than 12 years. However, the High Court ruled that the time limit for adverse possession begins when the defendant’s possession becomes “adverse” to the owner’s rights, not when the owner acquires the property. 

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the defendants failed to prove they had been using the land in an adverse way. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim was valid, and the defendants couldn’t establish ownership through adverse possession.

Guidelines on Demolition of Illegal Properties (November 13, 2024)

The Supreme Court, under the principle of "Separation of Powers," used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to issue guidelines regarding the demolition of unauthorized structures. However, these protections do not apply to encroachments on public land. 

Concerns have been raised about the illegal demolition of private property, as it may violate the principles of natural justice, due process, and the rule of law, especially when the state demolishes a house based on mere accusations.

The Court issued guidelines, including giving prior notice, a 15-day notice for removal, personal hearings, holding officials personally liable for violations, and ensuring demolitions are recorded and reported.

Judgment on Ancestral Property Rights

In 2024, the Supreme Court made some important decisions regarding ancestral property rights.

1. Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy: The court ruled that daughters have equal rights to ancestral property, even if their father passed away before the 2005 Hindu Succession Act came into effect.

2. K.C. Laxmana v. K.C. Chandrappa Gowda: The court said that ancestral property can only be gifted for religious or charitable purposes, not out of love or affection.

3. Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai: The court clarified that property inherited from a father, grandfather, or great-grandfather is ancestral. Sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons get an interest in it when they are born.

4. Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh & Ors: The court decided that ancestral property stops being joint family property once it passes on through succession.

5. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) By Lrs vs. Ponnusamy: The court said that a Hindu male's self-acquired property goes to his heirs by inheritance, and daughters have equal rights to it.

Protection of property rights under Article 300A

In 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important judgment on property rights under Article 300A in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. No one can lose their property without proper legal authority, the court ruled.

It outlined seven key rights under Article 300A, including the right to notice, fair compensation, and a transparent process. The court also struck down a land acquisition by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation for not following these safeguards. This decision strengthens property rights, ensuring fair treatment and protection against arbitrary actions by the state.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court of India reinforced the protection of property rights, addressing key issues like adverse possession, ancestral property, and demolition of illegal structures. It emphasized the importance of due process, transparency, and fairness in property matters.

These landmark judgments ensure that property owners are safeguarded against unjust actions, promoting a stronger legal framework for the protection of private property rights in India.