{"id":34845,"date":"2025-01-04T19:05:07","date_gmt":"2025-01-04T13:35:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/?p=34845"},"modified":"2025-01-04T19:05:09","modified_gmt":"2025-01-04T13:35:09","slug":"sc-no-deprivation-of-property-without-compensation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/current-affairs\/04-01-2025\/sc-no-deprivation-of-property-without-compensation","title":{"rendered":"No one can be Deprived of Property without Adequate Compensation: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Syllabus: GS2\/ Governance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In News<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  • The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the significance of the Right to Property as a Constitutional right and Human right in a welfare state.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    Historical Context of Right to Property<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    • Initially, the right to property was protected as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f)<\/strong>, which allowed citizens to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, and Article 31<\/strong>, which mandated compensation for property acquired by the state<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • However, tensions with land reform laws aimed at redistribution led to repeated amendments, diluting these protections.\u00a0<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Eventually, the 44th Constitution Amendment Act of 1978 removed the right to property<\/strong> from the list of Fundamental Rights, introducing Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution<\/strong>.\n
        \n
      • Article 300A states<\/strong>, \u201cNo person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law,\u201d 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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

        Key Highlights of the Judgment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        • Right to Property Under Article 300-A: <\/strong>No person can be deprived of their property except by authority of law.\n
            \n
          • Adequate compensation must be paid in accordance with the law if property is acquired.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Land Acquisition Case: <\/strong>\u00a0The judgment stemmed from a case involving land acquisition for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).\n
              \n
            • Landowners had been deprived of their property since 2005 without adequate compensation due to delays attributed to the “lethargic attitude” of state authorities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            • Supreme Court’s Intervention: <\/strong>The court, exercising its powers under Article 142, directed<\/strong> that the market value of the land be determined as per the prevailing rates in April 2019, not the original acquisition year (2003).<\/strong>\n
                \n
              • This adjustment was deemed necessary to ensure justice and to uphold the intent of Article 300-A.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n
              • Timeliness in Compensation: <\/strong>The court emphasized the importance of prompt determination and disbursal of compensation in land acquisition cases.\n
                  \n
                • It highlighted the economic reality that delayed compensation undermines its value due to inflation and lost investment potential.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                  Implications<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
                    \n
                  • The ruling reinforces accountability for state authorities in adhering to constitutional principles and respecting property rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
                  • It sets a precedent for determining compensation that considers delays caused by bureaucratic inefficiency and inflation, ensuring fairness to affected parties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

                    Source: TH<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                    The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the significance of the Right to Property as a Constitutional right and Human right in a welfare state.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-34845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-affairs"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34845","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=34845"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34845\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":34846,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34845\/revisions\/34846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nextias.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}