The Supreme Court of India ruled in a historic decision to safeguard landowners' interests against government land acquisitions by requiring all acquisitions to pass the Article 300A test. The Supreme Court overturned the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's plan to purchase private land in order to construct a public park because the acquisition was unlawful and the corporation lacked the necessary legal authority to do so.
Evolution of Right to property
Initially it was a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, included in Part III (Articles 19 and 31).
Through the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, it was removed from the list of fundamental rights and reclassified as a constitutional right under Article 300A.
Article 300A, states that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Legal Framework: This suggests that the government may still seize private property, but it will need to do so in accordance with a legal framework that explains the acquisition and
offers equitable compensation to the parties impacted.
Courts interpretation of Article 300A:
The struggle over property rights in India has been a long and contentious journey, originating from cases like Bela Banerjee and evolving through various constitutional amendments and landmark judgments.
Amendments to Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2): The Constitution (Fourth) Amendment in 1955 and the Constitution (Twenty-Fifth) Amendment in 1971 aimed to limit judicial review over compensation by substituting "compensation" with "amount."
Judicial Interpretation: Despite these amendments, the Supreme Court, through cases like Kesavananda Bharati, retained the power to scrutinize the principles for determining compensation, ensuring a balance between state authority and individual property rights.
The Supreme Court's (SC) interpretation of the Right to Property has changed throughout time, as demonstrated by the following court rulings:
In the Bank Nationalization case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to reasonable compensation for property seized by the government still exists.
Simultaneously, the court has maintained the Doctrine of Eminent Domain, which permits the government to take over private land for public uses.
The Supreme Court ruled in the Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar case of 1995 that the Indian Constitution's Basic Structure does not include the Right to Property as guaranteed under Article 300A of the document. It is just a legal right.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that unless the state is acting under legal authorization, it lacks the right to interfere in its citizens' private property. The court most recently reaffirmed this in the 2020 Vellore case of Ravindran v. District Collector.
In Vidya Devi v. the State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided in January 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to property is a human right. In this instance, the court decided that the state could not seize its subjects' property without completing the required legal procedures by using the Doctrine of Adverse Possession.
Recent Clarification:
The Supreme Court in "Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors" has further clarified the scope of Article 300-A, emphasizing seven essential procedural sub-rights that must be protected during land acquisition, thereby reinforcing the procedural safeguards against arbitrary deprivation of property.
A law that complies with Article 300A must have these seven fundamental rights; the absence of any one or all of them would make the law vulnerable to challenge:
Right to Notice: People have a right to know when their property is going to be acquired.
Right to Be Heard: Those who are impacted are entitled to express their concerns.
Right to a Reasoned Decision: The government is required to provide a rationale for the acquisition.
Justification for Public Purpose: Acquisitions must have a clearly defined public purpose.
Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation: Landowners are entitled to just compensation for their property, often known as the right of restitution.
Right to An Efficient and Expeditious Process: The right to an efficient and timely process: Acquisition processes must be timely and effective.
Right of Conclusion: The physical transfer of property marks the completion of the process; if possession is not taken, the acquisition is considered incomplete.
Article 300A of the Indian Constitution protects people's right to own property. It is a legal right. The freedom to own property was a fundamental right before the 44th Amendment Act. The Parliament changed the status quo due to the government's struggles to get land for development projects. It has maintained a legitimate right ever since. But underscoring its significance, the Supreme Court has indicated on multiple occasions that it is a human right.