• UGI USER
  • Jun 04, 2024
  • 11 Likes
  • 0 Comments

PROPERTY IS REAL, AND SO SHOULD THE ‘COMPENSATION’

SYLLABUS:

GS 2:

  • Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure.

Focus:

  • In a landmark verdict to protect the interests of landowners against acquisition of their property by the government, the Supreme Court of India ruled that all acquisitions would have to pass the test of Article 300A.
Source: Legal service India

The Evolution of Property Rights in India

Historical Context

  1. Initial Vision: The right to property was initially envisaged as a fundamental right in the Constitution.
  2. Post-Colonial Era: The right witnessed significant changes and conflicts between the courts and the legislature.
  3. Bela Banerjee Case: This case involved the interpretation of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution.
  4. Supreme Court’s Stance: The court held that “compensation” meant a just equivalent of what the owner was deprived of.
  5. Legislative Reaction: The Constitution (Fourth) Amendment was passed in 1955, restricting the courts from questioning the adequacy of compensation.

Legislative and Judicial Tug-of-War

  1. Legislative Retaliation: The legislature amended Article 31(2) to state that courts could not question compensation.
  2. Judicial Countermove: Courts held that while final compensation was non-justiciable, the principles for determining compensation were open to scrutiny.
  3. Socialist State Goals: The right to property was seen as an obstacle to achieving a socialist state.
  4. Twenty-Fifth Amendment: In 1971, the word “compensation” was replaced with “amount” to prevent judicial review of compensation adequacy.
  5. Kesavananda Bharati Case: The Supreme Court upheld the amendment but allowed judicial review of the principles for determining compensation.

Major Constitutional Changes

  1. Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978: Post-1977, the right to property under Article 19(1)(f) was deleted and moved to Article 300-A.
  2. Deletion of Article 31: This controversial article regarding compensation was also removed.
  3. Justice K.K. Mathew’s View: Ownership of property is linked to civilization and culture, suggesting it should remain a fundamental right.
  4. Prof. P.K. Tripathi’s Argument: Deleting Article 31 was a mistake; acquisition requires compensation.
  5. Article 300A: This article mandates that property can only be taken by law for public purpose with compensation.

Modern Judicial Interpretations

  1. Supreme Court’s Stance: The right to property is considered both a constitutional and a human right.
  2. M.C. Mehta Case: Laws depriving property must be just, fair, and reasonable.
  3. B.K. Ravichandra Case: Article 300A’s language closely resembles Articles 21 and 265, providing strong protection.
  4. Kolkata Municipal Corporation Decision: Seven facets of property rights under Article 300-A were established, including fair compensation.
  5. Reaffirmation of Compensation: Deprivation of property requires just and reasonable compensation, reinstating the Bela Banerjee case’s principles.

Facets Protected Under Article 300-A

  1. Right to Notice: Individuals must be informed before their property is acquired.
  2. Right to Be Heard: Property owners have the right to present their case.
  3. Right to a Reasoned Decision: Authorities must provide a clear rationale for property acquisition.
  4. Public Purpose Requirement: Property can only be acquired for public purposes.
  5. Right to Fair Compensation: Property owners are entitled to fair compensation for their loss.
Before the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978)

  • Part III of the Indian Constitution (Fundamental Rights):
    • Included Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.
    • Article 19(1)(f): Granted Indian residents the right to purchase, possess, and dispose of property.
    • Article 31: Protected against deprivation of property, ensuring this right could not be denied under any circumstance.
    • Conflict: These provisions restricted the state’s ability to acquire property for public interest, as the right to property was fundamental.

The 44th Amendment to the Indian Constitution

  • Abolished:
    • Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31.
    • Introduced a modified version of Article 31 as Article 300-A.
  • Impact:
    • Transformed the right to property from a fundamental right to a legal/constitutional right.

Article 300-A

  • Provision: “No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.”
  • Authority: Empowers the government to seize property for public welfare purposes.

Judicial Interpretations of Article 300-A

  • Madhya Pradesh HC (2022):
    • Property acquisition laws must be legitimate.
    • State’s acquisition of land must serve public benefit.
  • Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022):
    • Supreme Court ruled that even in a welfare state, the government must follow legal processes to seize property.
  • Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel:
    • Supreme Court acknowledged that the right to property, while no longer fundamental, remains a human right.

Conclusion

  1. Full Circle: The recent Supreme Court decisions have reinstated the need for fair compensation, aligning with earlier interpretations.
  2. Prof. P.K. Tripathi’s Prophecy: His prediction that property rights would receive unprecedented protection has come true.
  3. Increased Protection: The deletion of earlier articles unintentionally strengthened property rights.
  4. Judicial Affirmation: Courts have consistently upheld the need for just compensation.
  5. Final Vindication: The evolution of property rights highlights the balance between legislative intent and judicial interpretation.
The Doctrine of Adverse Possession

The Doctrine of Adverse Possession is a legal principle that allows an individual who occupies or resides on another person’s land for a prolonged period to claim legal ownership of that land. In India, this period is specified as 12 years. If the original owner does not take legal action to reclaim their property within this timeframe, the occupier can become the lawful owner.

Article 142

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court discretionary powers to ensure complete justice in any matter before it. It allows the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary to provide full justice.

Article 136 (Special Leave Petition)

Article 136 of the Indian Constitution permits the Supreme Court to hear appeals against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order from any court or tribunal within India, except for those established under laws related to the Armed Forces. This is at the discretion of the Supreme Court.

Source:The Hindu

Mains Practice Question:

“Property is real, and so should the ‘compensation’.” In light of this statement, discuss the principles and challenges of determining fair compensation for property acquisition in India. How have recent judicial decisions addressed these issues?

Associated Articles:

https://universalinstitutions.com/fundamental-rights/

https://universalinstitutions.com/land-reforms-in-india/