Right to property is a human and constitutional right: SC | Latest news India

New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday said that while the right to property is no longer a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, it remains a constitutional right and a recognized human right.

In an important judgment emphasizing 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 his property without being paid adequate compensation. in accordance with the law.

“The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978. However, it remains a human right in a welfare state and a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.” , the court noted. , in a case pertaining to long-pending compensation for land acquired for the Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP).

The court noted that Article 300A still protects people against dispossession of their property without legal authority and held that “a person cannot be deprived of his property without being paid adequate compensation in accordance with law for the same.” ”.

The judgment invoked earlier precedents to highlight the obligations of the State, citing the case of Vidya Devi v. 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 to itself powers beyond those permitted by the Constitution.

Referring to Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd vs Mast Ram (2024), the court reiterated: “The delay in payment of compensation, in accordance with law, to the owners after taking away their ownership of the land in question is contrary to the spirit of the constitutional scheme of article 300A and the idea of ​​a welfare state.”

The ruling also highlighted the evolution of property rights into the realm of human rights. Drawing on Tukaram Kana Joshi vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013), the court observed: “Human rights are considered in the ambit of individual rights such as right to health, right to livelihood, right to housing and employment. The right to property is largely part of this dimension of human rights.”

The petitioners, who purchased residential land in Gottigere village of Karnataka between 1995 and 1997, acquired their land in 2003 under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, for BMICP. Despite taking possession of the land, state authorities failed to provide compensation for more than two decades, forcing the owners to repeatedly go to court. Advocate R Chandrachud, representing the land owners, said that it has been more than 21 years since the preliminary notification of land acquisition was passed, but they have not received any compensation.

Underlining the grave injustice caused by the delay, the court underlined: “It cannot be denied that the appellants here have been deprived of their legitimate rights for almost 22 years. What the appellants could have purchased with compensation in 2003 cannot be purchased in 2025. It is, therefore, of utmost importance that the determination of allotment and disbursement of compensation in case of land acquisition be made promptly. ”.

The court lambasted the Karnataka government and its agencies, including the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB), for its “lethargic attitude”, pointing out that the appellants were forced to knock on the doors of the judiciary repeatedly. Referring to the principle of expropriation, the court observed that the power of the State to acquire land against the wishes of the owner carries with it the obligation to ensure prompt and fair compensation.

Recognizing this injustice, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to change the land valuation date to 2019. “If the compensation to be given at market value from the year 2003 is allowed, it would amount to allowing a travesty of justice and making a mockery of the constitutional provisions of Article 300A,” he said.

The court directed the special land acquisition officer (SLAO) to determine the compensation based on the 2019 market value and grant statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.