Context
- The Supreme Court underscored the constitutional safeguards required before the State can acquire private property.
About
- It is a step to protect private property from arbitrary state takeover for a public purpose.
- The judgement highlighted the necessity of adhering to fair procedures and upholding the rights of property owners under the Indian Constitution.
- The compulsory acquisition without following mandatory procedures followed by a grant of compensation to the owners will not make the accession constitutional.
Major Highlights of the Judgement
- As per th SC, The right to property is protected as a constitutional right and has even been interpreted to be a human right.
- It is generally assumed that for a valid acquisition all that is necessary is to possess the power of eminent domain [power of the sovereign to acquire property of an individual for public use without consent] to acquire, followed by grant of reasonable and fair compensation.
- Article 300 A: The court stated that procedural justice is a cornerstone of Article 300A when the acquisition of private property by the State is for a public purpose and on the payment of compensation.
- The phrase ‘authority of law’ in the Article should not be understood as merely the power of eminent domain vested in the state.
- The requirement of a ‘law’ in Article 300A does not end with the mere presence of legislation which empowers the state to deprive a person of his property.
- Seven basic rights: The court laid down seven basic procedural rights of private citizens which constitute the “real content of the right to property under Article 300A” that the state should respect before depriving them of their private property.
- They include, the right to notice or the duty of the state to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property;
- The right of the citizen to be heard or the duty of the state to hear the objections to the acquisition;
- The right of the citizen to a reasoned decision or the duty of the state to inform the person of its decision to acquire property;
- The duty of the state to demonstrate that the acquisition is exclusively for public purpose; the right to fair compensation of the citizen;
- The duty of the state to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines;
- And finally, the conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting or the right of conclusion.
Significance of the Judgement
- The ruling not only clarified the State’s obligations but also strengthened the procedural protections afforded to property owners, reinforcing the constitutional principles of justice and fairness in property rights.
| Right to Property
– Since the Constitution of India came into force, the property right was given fundamental status. a. Article 31 and Article 19(1)(f ) ensured that any person’s right against his property remains protected. – But by the Constitutional 44th Amendment Act 1978, these two above-mentioned articles were deleted and were added in Part XII, containing only one article 300A. a. The legal status of the Right to Property was changed from a fundamental right to a constitutional right. – In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujrat, it was held that the Right to property u/A 300A is not a basic structure of the Constitution. It is only a constitutional right
|