In a significant move the Supreme Court gave a ruling that will protect private property from arbitrary takeover by the state for “public purposes”.

The Supreme Court said that the acquisition of private properties without following mandatory legal protocols would be considered unconstitutional. The right to property is protected as a constitutional right and has even been understood to be a human right, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumar said in a judgment.

private property
Source: Live Law

“It is generally assumed that for a valid acquisition, all that is necessary is to possess the power of eminent domain to acquire, followed by the grant of reasonable and fair compensation… Compulsory acquisition will still be unconstitutional if proper procedure is not established and followed before depriving a person of his/her right to property,” Justice Narasimha said.

This judgment upheld a Calcutta High Court order rejecting an appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, regarding its acquisition of a private land. The court ordered to pay ₹5 lakh to the beneficiary within 60 days.

The judgment observed that though the 44th Constitutional Amendment excluded the right to property as a fundamental right, article 300A, which was simultaneously added to the Constitution, provided that “no person shall be deprived of his property, save by authority of law”.

A person's rights, and the history of liberty itself, have been protected through the enforcement of necessary legal procedures. Procedure is a crucial part of the 'authority of law' mentioned in Article 300A. According to Justice Narasimha, the requirement of 'law' in Article 300A goes even beyond the mere existence of legislation that allows the state to devoid someone of their property.

The court outlined seven fundamental procedural rights for private citizens that make up the real content of the right to property under Article 300A. These are:-

  1. Duty of the state to inform the person that it intends to take his/her property
  2. Right of the citizen to be heard for his/her objection regarding acquisition
  3. State's duty to inform the owner of its decision to acquire his/her property
  4. The duty of the state is to prove that the acquisition is exclusively for public purposes
  5. Right to fair compensation to the owner
  6. The duty of the state to conduct the acquisition within prescribed timeline durations
  7.  The conclusion of the proceedings or the right of conclusion.

You might also be interested in - Supreme Court declares NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha’s arrest invalid, orders his release from custody