The Supreme Court of India ruled Thursday that any acquisition of private property by the state must meet a set of criteria under Article 300A of India’s Constitution, which includes being carried out for a public purpose, following the law, and following proper procedure.
A two-justice bench including PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar held:
In various decisions interpreting Article 300A, this court has also held that a person can be deprived of his right to property only through the procedure established by law. The state must mandatorily comply with the procedure that has been provided under the statute for an acquisition to be valid under Article 300A. Therefore, a valid acquisition of property is premised on the law providing a procedure for such an acquisition and the State complying with this statutory procedure. Procedural justice is therefore a significant mandate of Article 300A. The existence of and adherence to procedural safeguards is crucial for the protection of the right to property as they ensure fairness, transparency, natural justice, and non-arbitrary exercise of power in the process of acquisition.
In early 2009, Kolkata Municipal Corporation attempted to “forcefully enter and occupy” a property on Narkeldanga North Road that belonged to Birinchi Bihari Shah. This incident prompted Shah to petition the Calcutta High Court. The court ruled in favour of the petitioner, instructing the corporation to investigate the encroachments and prohibiting any further construction on the property.
Subsequently, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) appealed the Calcutta High Court ruling in 2021 after the high court overturned the corporation’s acquisition proceedings.
The Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court order and rejected the KMC’s action to acquire a piece of private land. The court emphasised the importance of complying with the seven fundamental procedural rights conferred on a landowner by Article 300A before a valid acquisition occurs. The court determined that:
i) The state has a duty to inform the owners that it intends to acquire their property—a right to notice;
ii) The state’s obligation to consider objections—the right to hear;
iii) The state has a duty to inform its acquisition decision, ensuring the right to a reasoned decision;
iv) The state has a duty to demonstrate that the acquisition is for a public cause—acquisitions should only be made for public purposes;
v) The state’s duty to restitute and rehabilitate—the right to fair compensation;
vi) The state has a duty to conduct the acquisition process efficiently and within prescribed timelines—a right to efficient conduct; and
vii) The final outcome of the proceedings that lead to vesting—the right of conclusion.
In its verdict, the top court overturned the decision of the KMC to acquire private land at Narkeldanga North Road to construct a public park. The court ruled that the law does not grant the body the authority to obtain the land, thus deeming the acquisition illegal. The bench emphasized the importance of following the due procedure when it comes to the payment of compensation for the acquisition of private properties.
Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950, states that individuals cannot be deprived of their property unless authorised by law. This provision ensures that the state cannot confiscate a citizen’s property without following the proper legal procedures.
