No one can be Deprived of Property without Adequate Compensation: SC

Syllabus: GS2/ Governance

In News

• The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the significance of the Right to Property as a Constitutional right and Human right in a welfare state.

Historical Context of Right to Property

• Initially, the right to property was protected as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f), which allowed citizens to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, and Article 31, which mandated compensation for property acquired by the state. 
• However, tensions with land reform laws aimed at redistribution led to repeated amendments, diluting these protections. 
• Eventually, the 44th Constitution Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights, introducing Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution.
  • Article 300A states, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law,” ensuring property can only be acquired by the state through a valid legal process, thereby making it a constitutional right rather than a fundamental one.

Key Highlights of the Judgment

• Right to Property Under Article 300-A: No person can be deprived of their property except by authority of law.
  • Adequate compensation must be paid in accordance with the law if property is acquired.
• Land Acquisition Case:  The judgment stemmed from a case involving land acquisition for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
  • Landowners had been deprived of their property since 2005 without adequate compensation due to delays attributed to the “lethargic attitude” of state authorities.
• Supreme Court’s Intervention: The court, exercising its powers under Article 142, directed that the market value of the land be determined as per the prevailing rates in April 2019, not the original acquisition year (2003).
  • This adjustment was deemed necessary to ensure justice and to uphold the intent of Article 300-A.
• Timeliness in Compensation: The court emphasized the importance of prompt determination and disbursal of compensation in land acquisition cases.
  • It highlighted the economic reality that delayed compensation undermines its value due to inflation and lost investment potential.

Implications

• The ruling reinforces accountability for state authorities in adhering to constitutional principles and respecting property rights.
• It sets a precedent for determining compensation that considers delays caused by bureaucratic inefficiency and inflation, ensuring fairness to affected parties.

Source: TH