Check our website previousnotes.com/ for more updates
Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right. It is a Constitutional Right as per Article 300-A and a Human Right. A right to property is specified in Article 17 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Supreme Court of India also recognize ‘Right to Property’ as Human Right in it’s recent judgements.
Right to Property when Constitution was passed:
When Indian Constitution was passed, Right to Property was part of Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and under Article 31.
Article 19(1)(f) guaranteed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property.
Article 31(1): “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Article 31(2) (now Removed): Specified that Property can be acquired based on two conditions: (i) Acquisition is for Public Purpose (ii) Compensation must be provided to the owner.
Right to Property after 44th Constitutional Amendment
Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 were deleted from the Part III- “Fundamental Rights”.
The right to property is no longer a fundamental right but a legal right under Article 300-A.
Article 300-A states that no person shall be deprived of his property save by the authority of law.
Why it removed from Part III
When Constitution was passed, it was part of PART III of our Constitution under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of Indian Constitution. The right has been abolished because of its incompatibility with the goals of justice, social, economic and political and after 44th Amendment Act, it’s only a Constitutional Right.
Article 21 and ‘Right to Property’
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the law relating to acquisition of property must also satisfy Art. 21. Lordships of the Supreme Court observed:
“Article 21 essentially deals with personal liberty. It has little to do with the right to own
property as such. Here we are not concerned with a case where the deprivation
of property would lead to deprivation of life or liberty or livelihood. On the
other hand, land is being acquired to improve the living conditions of a large
number of people.”
“Land ceiling laws, laws providing for acquisition of land for providing housing
accommodation, laws imposing ceiling on urban property etc. cannot be struck
down by invoking Art. 21 of the Constitution.”
Case Laws:
Bela Banerjee case AIR 1954 SC 170 : the word “Compensation” deployed in Art. 31(2) implied full compensation‟, that is the market value of the property at the time of the acquisition. The Legislature must “ensure that what is determined as payable must be compensation, that is, a just equivalent of what the owner has been deprived of”.
Bank Nationalization case, 1955: held that the compensation in Art. 31(2) implied full monetary equivalent of the property taken from the owner, that is its market value at the date of the acquisition.
Keshavananda Bharati case: held that the amount which was fixed by the Legislature could not be arbitrary or illusory but must be determined by a principle which is relevant to the acquisition of property.
Basanti Bai case, 1984: Bomaby High Court held that inspite of deletion of Art. 31(2), there is still obligation on the State to pay adequate amount to the expropriated owner. Further, the law providing for deprivation of property must be fair, just andreasonable as propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the famous Maneka Gandhi case.
Tinsukhia Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, AIR 1990: has observed that even though Article 31 had not been deleted (at the time of the 42nd amendment) “Its content had been cut-down so much, so that even under a law providing for acquisition of property which did not have the protection of 31-C the adequacy of the “Amount” determined was non-justiciable and all that was necessary was that it should not be unreal or illusory.