The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that no person can be deprived of their property without adequate compensation, highlighting the constitutional and human right status of property ownership. 

• The Bench emphasized the importance of fair compensation in land acquisition cases.

Key Highlights of the Judgement 

• The verdict pertains to a case involving the acquisition of land for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
  • Landowners argued they had not been compensated despite losing possession of their properties.
• Issue: The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) initially used 2011 market rates to determine compensation, leading to disputes over delays and inadequate valuation.

Enroll now for UPSC Online Course

• Delay in Compensation: The court criticized the “lethargic attitude” of State officials, noting landowners had been deprived of compensation for nearly 22 years.
• Market Valuation Adjustment: In a significant decision, the court shifted the valuation date to April 22, 2019, instead of 2003, acknowledging the impact of inflation and the time value of money.Fairness and Justice: The court stated that using outdated market rates would be a travesty of justice and undermine constitutional provisions under Article 300-A.

Constitutional Provision: Right to Property

• Article 300-A: Right to Property is no longer a Fundamental Right since the 44th Amendment to the Constitution in 1978, but it remains a constitutional right.
• Meaning of Removal from Fundamental right: The removal of the right to property as a fundamental right and its reclassification as a constitutional right has reduced its level of protection and the remedies available to individuals.
  • As  a fundamental right under Part III of the Indian Constitution, individuals could directly challenge violations in the Supreme Court under Article 32, ensuring strong and immediate enforcement. The state also faced stricter scrutiny before interfering with this right. 
  • Presently , as a constitutional right under Article 300A, violations must be challenged in High Courts under Article 226. This shift gives the state more flexibility in regulating or expropriating property for public purposes.
• Authority of Law: Article 300-A mandates that property can only be taken by the State with legal authority and due procedure.
• Scope of Article 300 A: The Supreme Court has observed that the right to property as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution extends to persons who are not citizens of India.
  • The expression person in Article 300-A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India

Check Out UPSC Modules From PW Store

Broader Implications of the Judgement

• Human Rights Perspective: The right to property, while no longer fundamental, is essential in a welfare state and must be safeguarded with fair processes.
• Timeliness of Compensation: The court underscored the need for prompt determination and disbursal of compensation in land acquisition cases.
• Precedent for land Acquisition: This judgment sets a precedent for ensuring justice in land acquisition and reaffirms the importance of adequate compensation to uphold citizens’ constitutional rights.