Evolution of Eminent Domain in India

Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for a public purpose, such as infrastructure, urban development, and industrialization, provided that compensation is paid to the owner. The term “eminent domain” derives from the Latin phrase eminentia, meaning superior lordship.

In India, the doctrine has evolved significantly since colonial times, influenced by constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decisions, and socio-economic needs. [3]

Historical Foundations

1. British Colonial Rule

   During British colonial rule, the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 empowered the government to acquire private land for public purposes such as railways, roads, irrigation projects, and administrative buildings. [4]

Constitutional Evolution: 1947 Onward

1. Property Rights in the Constitution

   The framers of the Constitution gave property rights strong protection as Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. [5] However, this protection soon clashed with developmental and social justice objectives, leading to constitutional and judicial transitions.

2. State of West Bengal v. Bela Banerjee (1954)

   The Government of West Bengal acquired Bela Banerjee’s land under the Land Development and Planning Act, 1948, without paying fair compensation at market value.

   Issue: Whether “compensation” in Article 31(2) meant a just equivalent (market value) or an arbitrary amount fixed by the legislature.

   Held: The Supreme Court held that compensation must mean a just equivalent of the property acquired. Arbitrary or illusory amounts could not be considered compensation. [6]

3. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967)

   The Supreme Court held that Parliament could not amend Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution. [7]

   1. State’s Response: 24th and 25th Amendments (1971)

      • 24th Amendment Act, 1971: Affirmed Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
      • 25th Amendment Act, 1971: Replaced “compensation” with “amount” in Article 31(2) and added Article 31C, giving precedence to laws implementing Directive Principles of State Policy. [8]

4. The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 – A New Era

   The 44th Amendment removed the right to property as a Fundamental Right by repealing Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, and inserted Article 300A:

   “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”

Thus, the right to property became a constitutional/legal right instead of a Fundamental Right. [9]

Judicial Definition of Due Process

1. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) – The “Seven Rights” Doctrine

   The Supreme Court interpreted “authority of law” in Article 300A to include the following procedural safeguards:

   1. Duty to notify public purpose
   2. Right to be heard (objections)
   3. Duty to consider objections
   4. Decision by a competent authority
   5. Right to fair compensation
   6. Duty to ensure a meaningful, time-bound process
   7. Final conclusion leading to vesting. [10]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

1. Need for New Legislation

   The 1894 Act faced criticism for opaque procedures, inadequate compensation, and absence of rehabilitation or resettlement provisions, which led to the LARR Act, 2013. [11]

2. Objectives of the Act

   • To make land acquisition fair, transparent, and humane
   • To ensure prior consent of affected people for certain projects
   • To link compensation to market value
   • To guarantee rehabilitation and resettlement
   • To balance development with rights protection. [11]

3. Major Changes Introduced

   • Consent of 70% of landowners for Public-Private Partnership projects and 80% for private projects
   • Compensation up to four times market value in rural areas and twice in urban areas
   • Mandatory housing, employment, and other facilities for affected families
   • Requirement of Social Impact Assessment (SIA) before acquisition
   • Return of unused acquired land after five years to owners or state land bank. [11]

This Act shifted focus from state power to people’s rights, ensuring transparency, fair compensation, and rehabilitation. [12]

Conclusion

The evolution of eminent domain in India reflects a shift from absolute state control to a more balanced, rights-based approach. Starting with the colonial 1894 Act, the government enjoyed sweeping acquisition powers with minimal accountability.

After independence, property rights were gradually diluted—from Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 to a mere constitutional/legal right under Article 300A after the 44th Amendment. [9]

Judicial pronouncements in Bela Banerjee, Golaknath, and K.T. Plantation infused fairness, reasonableness, and due process into land acquisition. The LARR Act, 2013 reflects this evolution, emphasizing consent, compensation, and rehabilitation.

Despite challenges in implementation, India’s present approach aims to balance the needs of the state with individual rights, prioritizing justice over unchecked governmental power.