Context: 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.

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.

Judicial verdicts related to Right to Property

• Vidya Devi Case (2020): The Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot acquire private land through adverse possession without following proper legal procedures. This upholds the right to property and emphasizes due process.

• Bella Banerjee Case (1954): This case dealt with the scope of Article 19(1)(f) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to property. The court clarified the limitations on this right, allowing for reasonable restrictions in the public interest.

• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995): This case addressed the issue of compensation for land acquired by the state. The court emphasized the need for fair and just compensation to landowners when their property is taken for public use.

Background 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.

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.

• 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.

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