Source: Calcutta High Court (SA 60 of 2021)

Why in News?

Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury of Calcutta High Court gave observation regarding states' responsibility to protect the right to property under Article 300-A in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Achinta Roy.

What is the Background of the State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Achinta Roy Case?

• As per plaintiffs, they were the owners of their mother’s land in the Land Records.
• Suddenly in 1987, the state mentioned itself as the owner of the suit property during.
• The District Judge held in favor of plaintiffs against which the state filed an appeal before HC.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Calcutta HC held that, during the ongoing legal proceedings before the lower court, the defendant State unlawfully expelled the plaintiffs from the property in question, an action deemed entirely illegal.
• The court said that the State is obligated to safeguard citizens and uphold their property rights, recognized as constitutional rights.
• Consequently, the State is now responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for the wrongful dispossession of the property from 1^st May 2000, until the rightful possession is reinstated.

What is Right to Property under Constitution of India?

• Initial Position of Right to Property:
  • The Right to Property was initially recognized as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 of the Constitution of India.
  • These provisions guaranteed citizens the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, and prohibited the deprivation of property without the authority of law.
• 1^st Amendment (1951):
  • Recognizing the need for agrarian reforms and addressing social inequalities, the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, amended Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31, paving the way for the government to impose restrictions on the right to property in the interest of the general public.
• 44^th Amendment (1978):
  • The most significant change came with the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, which altered the constitutional landscape by abolishing the fundamental right to property altogether.
  • Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 were omitted with effect from 20^th June 1979.
  • The 44^th Amendment Act inserted a new provision, Article 300-A, which acknowledged the right to property as a legal right rather than a fundamental right.
• Current Status:
  • As of the present constitutional framework, the Right to Property is primarily governed by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
  • Article 300-A states that no person shall be deprived of his or her property save by authority of law.
  • Unlike the earlier provisions, the current stance emphasizes that the right to property is not absolute and can be regulated by law.

What the Landmark Cases Related to Right to Property?

• A K Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950):
  • This case, heard by the Madras HC, was one of the early instances where the court grappled with the conflict between the right to property and the state's power to regulate it.
  • The court upheld the constitutionality of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which authorized the state to take possession of any property for public order.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
  • This case is often referred to as the "basic structure doctrine" case.
  • While not directly related to the right to property, it is crucial in understanding the constitutional context.
  • The Supreme Court, in a historic decision, held that while the Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution, it cannot alter its basic structure.
  • This case indirectly influenced the subsequent amendment that transformed the right to property into a legal right.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980):
  • In this case, the Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which gave Parliament unbridled power to amend the Constitution.
  • The court, while upholding the amendment abolishing the fundamental right to property, emphasized that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to be a constitutional right.
• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujrat (1995):
  • SC held that the Right to Property is not a part of the Basic Structure Doctrine of the Constitution.