Once upon a time, it was thought that the so-called personal rights like the right to vote, right to freedom of speech or personal liberty occupied a higher status in the hierarchy of values than property right. As a result, the courts were more astute to strike down legislations, which impinged upon these rights, than upon property rights.
Land acquisition refers to the process by which government compulsorily acquires private property for public purpose. There is a heightened public concern on land acquisition issues in India. Despite many amendments, over the years, to India's Land Acquisition Act of 1894, there was an absence of a cohesive national law that may address fair compensation when private land is acquired for public use, and fair rehabilitation of land owners and those directly affected from loss of livelihoods.
Land acquisition in India is currently governed by The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act, 2013) which came into force from 1 January 2014 after the replacement of Land Acquisition Act of 1894. Additionally, there are 16 Acts with provisions for acquisition of land in specific sectors such as Railways, Special Economic Zones (SEZs), national highways, etc. The provisions under Schedule II and III have also been applied to some of the special acts.
The right to property is often derided as the "least defensible" right in a socialist democracy and it happened in our country as well. It is very absorbing to note that Right to Property has induced the most number of amendments to our Constitution and also has formed the core from which some commendable and historic decisions emerged out of our judiciary. The saga of legislative manipulation of the right to property began with the First Amendment Act, 1951 by which the Articles 31-A and 31-B were inserted into the Constitution.
The Constitution makers bestowed right on every citizen of the country to acquire, hold and dispose of property and also provided ample safeguards against deprivation of the property by Legislature by confining such deprivation for public purpose only and only on payment of compensation to the expropriated owner either by fixing the amount of compensation or by specifying the principles upon which it could be determined or fixed.
The right to property, while no longer a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, is protected as a constitutional right under Article 300A and has been interpreted by courts as a human right. This provision ensures that landowners have several procedural safeguards against arbitrary state action. The judiciary has elucidated seven fundamental procedural rights that the state must observe when acquiring property. The Constitution of India, as originally adopted safeguarded the Right to Property in a number of ways.
Eminent Domain means that (a) power of the state to take, (b) without the owner's consent, and (c) for the public use. The Supreme Court by various judgments considered the said amendments and restricted their scope within reasonable confines. The SC in Kocchuni vs State of Madras, did not accept the plea of the state that Article 31(1) after amendments gave an unrestricted power to the state to deprive a person of his property.
It held that Article 31(1) and (2) are different fundamental rights and that the expression ʺlawʺ in Article 31(1) shall be valid law and that it cannot be valid law unless it amounts to a reasonable restriction in public interest within the meaning of Article 19(5). The SC in P Vajravelu Mudalier vs Special Deputy Collector and Union of India Vs Metal Corporation of India considered Article 31(2) in the context of compensation and held that if the compensation fixed was illusory or the principles prescribed were irrelevant to the value of the property at or about the time of acquisition, it could be said that the Legislature had committed a fraud on power and therefore the law was inadequate.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a 2022 judgment, clarified that any law pertaining to property acquisition must be legitimate, emphasising that the state's acquisition of land should unequivocally benefit the public. In the landmark case of Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022), the SC reinforced this stance, ruling that even within a welfare state framework, government authorities are not permitted to seize property without adhering to the necessary legal procedures. Further reinforcing the significance of property rights, the SC in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel ruled that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, it retains its status as a human right.
These judicial pronouncements collectively underscore the robust protection afforded to property rights, highlighting the procedural safeguards and the necessity for legitimate, public-purpose-driven acquisition by the state. To forcibly dispossess a person of his private property, without following due process of law, would be violative of a human right, as also the constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. (D.B.Basnett (D) Thr. Lrs. vs The Collector SC March 2020)
Supreme court recently in May 2024 given guidelines for acquiring property of an individual. These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge, the Court stated.
First, there is the duty of the state to inform the owners about the intent to acquire their property, which ensures the right to notice. The state must provide landowners an opportunity to raise objections, thereby upholding their right to be heard.
It is required to communicate its decision regarding the acquisition, which is the right to a reasoned decision. The acquisition must demonstrably serve a public purpose, ensuring that the process is justified and not arbitrary. The state has a duty to offer fair compensation and facilitate restitution and rehabilitation for those affected, safeguarding the right to fair compensation.
Next must conduct the acquisition process efficiently and within prescribed timelines, ensuring the right to an efficient conduct of the proceedings. Lastly, the state must bring the acquisition process to a definitive conclusion, respecting the right of conclusion for the landowners. These procedural safeguards collectively ensure that the right to property is not merely a nominal right but a substantial one, protected against unjust and capricious state actions.
Our Constitution was framed by an extraordinary body of men, a body of men whose combined virtues and talents have seldom if ever been equaled in this country. They possessed that rare quality of mind, which unites theory and practice. They understood the unique conditions of the country and the enduring needs and aspirations of the people, and they adapted their principles to the character and genius of the nation.
They visualised a society in which every citizen should be the owner of some property not only as a means of sustenance but also as a zone of security from tyranny and economic oppression and they put that right above the vote of transient majority. Even when the legislature drafts laws with utmost care and precision, keeping in mind all the present situations and the future scenarios that might arise, often there are times when an unexpected situation might come up.
Statutes are drafted by the legislature and there is every possibility of situations of ambiguity, conflicts, anomalies, absurdities, hardships, repugnancy, redundancy etc. The principle of harmonious construction plays a very important role in interpreting statutes and is used in abundance of cases. 'The administration of justice is the firmest pillar of the government.' Thus, in keeping with this thought, the judiciary should interpret the statutes properly and intelligently apply the rules for interpretation of statues to render quick justice to the citizens of the country.
