Right to property is a human and constitutional right: SC
The court pointed out that Article 300A still protects individuals from being dispossessed of their property without legal authority.
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday asserted that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, it remains a constitutional right and a recognised human right.
In a significant judgment emphasising the sanctity of property rights in a welfare State, a bench comprising justices Bhushan R Gavai and KV Viswanathan stressed that a person cannot be deprived of their property without adequate compensation being paid in accordance with the law.
“Right to Property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978. However, it continues to be a human right in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution,” noted the bench, in a case concerning long-pending compensation for lands acquired for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).
The court pointed out that Article 300A still protects individuals from being dispossessed of their property without legal authority and held that “a person cannot be deprived of his property without him being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same”.
The judgment invoked past precedents to highlight the State’s obligations, citing the case of Vidya Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh (2020), where the court held that the State, as a welfare entity governed by the rule of law, could not arrogate powers beyond those permitted by the Constitution.
Referring to Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd vs Mast Ram (2024), the bench reiterated: “The delay in the payment of compensation, in accordance with law, to the landowners after taking away ownership of the subject land from them is in contravention to the spirit of the constitutional scheme of Article 300A and the idea of a welfare State.”
The judgment also underlined the evolution of property rights into the realm of human rights. Drawing from Tukaram Kana Joshi vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013), the bench observed: “Human rights are considered in the realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, right to livelihood, right to shelter and employment. The right to property is very much part of this dimension of human rights.”
The petitioners, who purchased residential plots in Karnataka’s Gottigere village between 1995 and 1997, had their lands acquired in 2003 under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, for BMICP. Despite taking possession of the land, state authorities did not finalise compensation for over two decades, forcing the landowners to repeatedly approach courts. Advocate R Chandrachud, representing the landowners, submitted that more than 21 years have passed since the preliminary notification was passed acquiring the lands, but they have not received any compensation.
Underscoring the severe injustice caused by the delay, the court underlined: “It cannot be gainsaid that the appellants herein have been deprived of their legitimate dues for almost 22 years. What the appellants could have bought with the compensation in 2003 cannot be bought in 2025. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination of the award and disbursal of compensation in case of acquisition of land should be made with promptitude.”
The court castigated the Karnataka government and its agencies, including the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), for their “lethargic attitude”, noting that the appellants were forced to knock on the judiciary’s doors repeatedly. Referring to the principle of eminent domain, the court observed that the State’s power to acquire land against the owner’s wishes comes with an obligation to ensure prompt and fair compensation.
Recognising this injustice, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to shift the valuation date of the land to 2019. “If the compensation to be awarded at the market value as of the year 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making the constitutional provisions under Article 300A a mockery,” it held.
The bench directed the special land acquisition officer (SLAO) to determine compensation based on the 2019 market value and award statutory benefits under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act.
