Source: The Hindu

Introduction

In the landmark case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors (2023), a pivotal ruling by the Supreme Court affirmed the fundamental principles of property rights enshrined in Article 300A of the Indian Constitution,1950.

What was the Outlook of Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. Case?

• Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar presiding, the Court meticulously delineated the essential sub-rights within the framework of property ownership, emphasizing fair compensation and lawful acquisition conduct.
• SC quashed the decision of Kolkata Municipal Corporation to acquire private land at Narkeldanga North Road to build a public park.
  • It said the law does not authorize the body to acquire the land and the acquisition was illegal.
• The decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation vindicates the prophetic words of Prof. P.K. Tripathi, that in enacting the 44^th Amendment and deleting Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, Parliament has unwittingly given the property of a citizen the kind of protection it has never enjoyed before either in British or in independent India.

What are the Major Constitutional Changes Regarding the Right to Property?

• Right to property was the fundamental Right till 1978 provided under 19(1)(f).
• The 44^th Amendment entailed the removal of the right to property from Article 19(1)(f) of Part III and its reincorporation as a constitutional right within Article 300-A. Additionally, Article 31, which had been a subject of significant controversy concerning compensation determination, was also expunged.
• Justice K.K. Mathew, a dissenting judge in the Kesavananda Bharati case, said that property ownership bears a direct correlation with civilization's quality and culture.
• He argued against excluding the fundamental right to own and acquire property from the roster of constitutional bedrock, even within the framework of the basic structure doctrine.
• In 1980, a professor asserted in an influential publication that the deletion of Article 31 was a misstep.
• He contended that the power conferred by Entry 42 of the concurrent list pertains to “acquisition” rather than “confiscation”.
• The professor maintained that the explicit inclusion of conditions mandating acquisition solely for public purposes and accompanying compensation within Article 31(2) obviated the necessity of deeming them inherent aspects of the grant itself.
• Article 300A stipulates that no individual shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law.
• According to the professor this signifies that the "law" cannot be deemed valid unless the acquisition or requisition serves a public purpose and incorporates provisions for compensation.
• He maintained that "compensation" would retain the same interpretation as delineated in the Bela Banerjee case, signifying the market value of the property around the time of acquisition.
• In subsequent years following the elimination of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, the Supreme Court has asserted that the right to property constitutes both a constitutional and a human right.
• In the M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1986), the Court pronounced that for a law to be valid, it must be just, fair, and reasonable. Therefore, despite not being categorized as a fundamental right, any law depriving an individual of their property must adhere to the mandates of Articles 14, 19, and 21.
• The Court in the B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India (2020) emphasized the striking resemblance between the phrasing of Article 300A and Articles 21 and 265.
• The Court observed that the guarantee enshrined in Article 300A could not be diluted.

What was the Impact of the Constitution 25^th Amendment Act on Property Rights?

• In response to the complexities arising from the term "compensation" in Article 31(2), Parliament introduced the Constitution 25^th Amendment Act of 1971.
• This amendment replaced "compensation" with "amount," effectively insulating it from judicial interpretation.
• Consequently, property acquisition could proceed under eminent domain, with landowners now entitled to an "amount" rather than "compensation."
• This revision precluded judicial scrutiny of the adequacy of the "amount" provided.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. Union of India (1973) upheld the validity of the Constitution 25^th Amendment Act, 1971, the Supreme Court, through interpretation, mitigated its intended impact.
• The majority opinion in Kesavananda Bharati ruled that while the sufficiency of the amount paid could not be judicially reviewed, the courts could still evaluate the relevance of the principles guiding compensation determination.
• After the R.C Cooper v. Union of India (1970), the Parliament was convinced that the right to property remained a formidable impediment to achieving a socialist state, as it was perceived from a socialist standpoint as a bastion of the bourgeoisie.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) reaffirms the protection of property rights under Article 300A, emphasizing fair compensation and lawful acquisition. Despite legislative changes reducing these rights, the Court upholds their essential role in justice and individual freedoms.