Everyday some or the other legal developments take place. We have been given
certain rights and with it comes duty. In order to protect people fundamental
rights are given to them in Constitution, but it is interesting to see that in
one instance in order to do economic justice, a person's fundamental right was
converted into just a constitutional right, that is Right to Property.
The main aim of this writing is to enable readers to know why the legal status
of the Right to Property was changed from a fundamental right to a
What is Property?
The word property
interpreted by SC for Art. 31 has said, should
be given a liberal meaning and should be extended to all those well-recognized
types of interest which have the insignia or characteristic of property
right. The expression property in Article 300A is confined not only to land
alone. It includes both corporal and incorporeal rights . It includes
Money, contract, interest in the property, etc.
Right to Property as a fundamental right
Since the Constitution of India came into force in the 1950s, the right to
property was given fundamental status. Basically, two articles Art. 31 and Art.
19(1)(f) ensures that any person's right against his property remains protected.
Art. 31 clause (1) reads as No person shall be deprived of his property save by
authority of law. It gives protection to persons against the government or
State's arbitrary action to seize private property for public use and private
use. That means a person has right to move to SC in case of violation of this
right. At this juncture it is essential to understand the power of Eminent
Domain- every government has an inherent right to take and appropriate the
private property belonging to an individual citizen for public use. It is
based on the legal maxim Salus Populi est suprema lex meaning the welfare of
people or the public is the paramount law.
In America, this power was limited by imposing three restrictions:
- there must be a law authorizing the taking of property
- the property must be taken for a public purpose
- just compensation should be paid.
In India clause (1) of art. 31 provides for first restriction and clause (2)
reading No property shall be compulsorily acquired or requisitioned save for a
public purpose and save by authority of a law which provides for acquisition of
the property for an amount which shall be fixed by such law, and no such law be
called in question in any court on the ground that the amount so fixed is not
adequate for the other two restrictions.
Article 19(1)(f) provides the freedom to citizens to acquire, hold, and dispose
of the property within the territory of India.
But by the Constitutional 44th Amendment act 1978, these two above mentioned
articles were deleted and a new chapter IV was added in Part XII, containing
only one article 300A.
The legal status of the Right to Property was changed from the fundamental right
to constitutional right. As a result, people were not allowed to approach
Supreme Court directly u/A 32 of the constitution for violation of the Right to
Property although they still could invoke jurisdiction at high court u/A 226 of
In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujrat, it was held that the
Right to property u/A 300A is not a basic structure of the Constitution. It is
only a constitutional right.
Why the 44th amendment act was made?
In order to understand why such a step was taken by the Parliament of India, it
is necessary to understand that before India get its independence there were
four major systems prevailing � the Ryotwari system, Mahalwari system, Zamindari
system, and Jagidari system. Due to these large parts of land was in possession
of zamindars, tenants, and like people, which causes an unequal distribution of
land and increases the gap between rich and poor.
Since 1947-1950, the constituent assembly worked day and night to draft the
Constitution of India. Members of the constituent assembly were concerned by the
situation at that time and knew various land reforms and acquisition acts will
be needed to pass, due to the above-mentioned system, so in order to
redistribute land and to rectify the damage various steps were taken:
- Provisions related to saving of certain laws were added- By Constitution
1st amendment act 1951 Art. 31A and 31B were added. Art.31A provides that no
law providing for the acquisition of any estate or any right or modification
of any right will not be deemed to be void on the basis that it is
inconsistent with Art. 14 and 19. Art.31B provides for validation of certain
acts and regulations, it says that none of the acts and regulations
mentioned in the IX Schedule of the constitution would be deemed to be void
on the ground that it is inconsistent with the rights conferred in Part III
of the constitution. Later on, by the 4th amendment 1955, the scope of the
estate was increased, it includes any jagir, inam or muafi, or any other
- Land celling was one of the strongest measures taken in this regard.
Celling means the maximum limitation on the area that can be acquired by a
private person. In the year 1959 at the Nagpur conference of Indian National
Congress, it was decided that laws or acts related to the restriction of
land limits must be implemented till the end of the year. The land ceiling
act was implemented from 1960-1972 and from1976-1999.
Despite such efforts by the government the zamindars and other land owners
whose ceiling limit exceeded approached Supreme Court using their fundamental
right to property with the intention to hold acts unconstitutional. So, in order
to stop this from happening and with a view to doing economic justice, Art.31,
and Art. 19(1)(f) ceased to be a fundamental right and was modified as a
constitutional right in new chapter IV Part XII of the Constitution as Art.
300A, which continues to exist and follow till today.
Present Legal Status of Right to Property
By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely
300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This
article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's
property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force
of law. The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and
In the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs the State of Maharashtra And
, it was held by the SC that the appellant cannot be deprived of
his strip of land being a private road, without the authority of law, if allowed
will be a violation of Art. 300A of COI.
Art. 31 used to impose a similar limitation on the power of Eminent Domain as in
America but the new Art. 300A only imposes one restriction on this power that is
the authority of law.
It is obvious such deprivation will have the force of law only when it is for
public welfare and is just, fair and reasonable. In the case of K.T. Plantation
Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, it was held by SC that the requirement of
public purpose is invariably the rule when a person is deprived of his property.
The main question arises if any person is deprived of his property by the
force of law for the public interest, will he be entitled to compensation?
The answer is yes. Although it is not explicit like in Art. 30(1)(A) as well as
in 2nd proviso of Art.31A (1) but yet it can be inferred in Article 300A. The
State has to justify its stand on justiciable grounds which depends upon
Right to own Private Property is a Human Right
In the recent judgment of Vidhya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors
it was held by SC that the Right to own Private Property is a human right and
cannot be denied. The party depriving one's right to property must have the
authority of law. In this case, the plaintiff was given compensation for the
wrong acquisition of property by the state.
Due to the excessive possession of land by the zamindars and tenants, the legal
status of the Right to freedom was changed from a fundamental right to a
constitutional right in order to avoid the situation of misusing of right to
property as a fundamental right by zamindars and another landowner against state
measures to acquire land and to implement land ceiling laws in India. Still,
this right is available to all persons as a constitutional right and can invoke
the jurisdiction in high court u/A 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Commr. Hindu Religious Endowment v. L.T. Swamiar, AIR 1954 SC 282.
- Dewarka Das Srinivas v. Sholapur Spg. And Wvg.Co.Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 112.
- Bombay Dyeing Co. v. State of Bombay, AIR 1958 SC 328.
- Charanjit Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 41
- AIR 1995 SC 142
- M/s. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. V. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 573.
- Civil Appeal No. 6156 of 2013., decided on 07-08-20.
- AIR 2011 SC 3430
- SC, DB,Appeal(civil), 60-61 of 2020, Judgement date: Jan 08 2020
- SC- Supreme Court
- Art.- Article
- u/a- Under article
- v.- verses
- Ltd.- limited
Written By: Shivang Parashar