Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar upheld the constitutional principles governing the right to property, identified the essential sub-rights, and found the Corporation's actions to be illegal and violative of statutory provisions and constitutional principles.

• The Supreme Court made this observation in the case of M olkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors.

What was the Background of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. Case?

• Facts:
  • The Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) claimed to have acquired the property of Birinchi Bihari Shah under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980.
  • The property in question is Premises No. 106C, situated at Narikeldanga North Road, Kolkata – 700011.
  • Birinchi Shah succeeded the property through a deed of settlement executed by his father.
  • In 2009, when KMC attempted to forcefully occupy the property, Birinchi Shah filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a restraint order against KMC.
  • In 2010, KMC deleted Birinchi Shah's name as the owner and inserted its own name in the official records, leading to another writ petition by Birinchi Shah.
• Trial Court (Single Judge) Views:
  • The Single Judge held that KMC had no power of compulsory acquisition under Section 352 of the Act and quashed the alleged acquisition.
• High Court (Division Bench) Views:
  • The Division Bench, in the impugned judgment, affirmed the Single Judge's order and held that there is no power of compulsory acquisition under Section 352.
  • The Division Bench directed KMC to either initiate acquisition proceedings under Sections 536 or 537 of the Act within five months or restore the name of the last recorded owner as the owner of the property.
• Appeal to Supreme Court:
  • After the Division Bench's judgment, KMC filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

What are the Court’s Observations?

• Constitutional Right to Property:
  • As amended by 44^th Amendment, Article 300A of the Constitution of India, 1950 protects the right to property and requires compliance with fair procedure before depriving any person of their immovable property.
  • Providing just compensation alone does not complete the procedure for valid acquisition of 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.
• Sub-rights Constituting the Right to Property:

The court identified seven sub-rights that form part of the constitutional right to property under Article 300A:

• • Right to notice of intention to acquire the property.
  • Right to be heard and raise objections against the proposed acquisition.
  • Right to a reasoned decision from the acquiring authority.
  • Duty of the State to acquire property only for public purpose.
  • Right of the property owner to restitution or fair compensation.
  • Right to an efficient and expeditious acquisition process.
  • Right of conclusion, i.e., final vesting of the property in the State after completing the process.
• Statutory Incorporation and Judicial Recognition:
  • Union and State laws on land acquisition have incorporated these sub-rights in various forms.
  • Courts have recognized the importance of these sub-rights, even independent of statutory provisions.
• Observations in the Present Case:
  • Section 352 of the Act does not provide any procedure for acquiring private property.
  • The appellant-Corporation blatantly violated statutory provisions by invoking Section 352(a) to acquire property without following due process, despite legal advisors raising concerns.
  • The acquisition under Section 352(a) was illegal, invalid, and in contravention of the Act.
• Dismissal of Appeal:
  • The High Court rightly allowed the writ petition and rejected the Corporation's case of acquiring land under Section 352.
  • The SC dismissed the Corporation's appeal against the High Court judgment.
  • The Corporation was directed to pay costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent within 60 days.

What are the Sub-Rights of Right to Property?

• Right to Notice of Acquisition:
  • The State has a duty to inform the person of its intention to acquire their property through a clear, cogent, and meaningful notice.
• Right to be Heard:
  • Following the notice, the property-bearer has the right to communicate their objections and concerns, which must be given a meaningful and not a sham hearing.
• Right to a Reasoned Decision:
  • The authority must take an informed decision and communicate the same through a reasoned order to the objector.
• Duty to Acquire Only for Public Purpose:
  • Acquisition must be for a public purpose, which conditions the purpose of acquisition and must stand to reason with the larger constitutional goals.
• Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation:
  • Deprivation of the right to property is permissible only upon restitution, be it monetary compensation, rehabilitation, or similar means.
  • Fair and reasonable compensation is the sine qua non for any acquisition process.
• Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process:
  • The administration must be efficient in concluding the acquisition process within a reasonable time, as delays are traumatic for the property-bearer.
• Right of Conclusion:
  • The culmination of the acquisition process is not just the payment of compensation but also the taking over of actual physical possession and final vesting of the property in the State.