Right to Property
The latitude of Right to property is unceasingly declined by cutting down it
through constitutional amendments unlike the fundamental rights. Pragmatically
the right to property has come to an end to exist in India in todayís time. In
the field of property right many much important legislations in the
constitutional law has arisen due to large legislation ratified by the state
government and central government to protect the rights of property.
The 44th amendment in the constitution (act), 1978, signifies the fundamental
right to property. Before 1978, there were only two articles to protect the
right to property which are Article 19(1) (f) and Article 31 but these were also
repealed by the amendments of constitution of India and thus leaving the private
The most prime query in this controversy was the amount of reimbursement for
the property rights that can be acquired. The most prime constitutional disputes
which have been fought throughout these questions by which the constitution is
amended several times to get over these non-convenient judicial proceedings.
The word property
is termed From Latin word Ďproprietatí which means a thing
owned. The concept of property that has an important place in a human life as it
is impossible to live without the use of the material objects which constitutes
a subject matter of property in our lives.
The word property is used in much wider sense in today's world. It includes all
the rights which a person has which means a personís life, Liberty end
reputation which he might have against other on his property.
It also means: the proprietary rights in rem
as per the Salmond.
In one of the case of Hindu religious funding VK lakshmindra where Supreme
Court said that no way is there why the word 'property' which is used in article
19 (1)(F) of the constitution which is of India that it cannot be provided wide
range of connotation. Which gives a reason for giving such a wide meaning to the
word 'property' and even in the case of Shantabai v. state of Bombay
held that a
bare contractual right unattended with any interest in property is property.
In the modern judicial times where it is trend to interpret the right to
property in the light of article 21 of the constitution of India which deals
with the personal Liberty also needed to be brought up at this place. also in
many number of cases apex court has expressed his views that the article 21
should also cover a variety of rights which also constitute the right to
personal Liberty of a person.
After the independence of the country, the constitution of India came into force
on 26 January, 1950 and the right to property was included as a fundamental
right in article 19 (1)(F) and article 31 which is there in Part III which makes
it an enforceable right.
During the first decade after independence, it was felt that the right to
property is a fundamental Right will be a great imminent in commencing a
socio-economic order and also a source of conflict because when the states were
o acquire private property for public purposes, particularly for the expansion
of rails roads and industries etc.
Now in order to get rid of this hurdle, S C held in the historic case which is
also properly known as fundamental rights case That the right to property now no
longer a part of the basic structure of the constitution in India and hence the
parliament can acquire or takeaway the private property of person for concerned
goods or in interest of public.
Thereupon, the 44th amendment of constitution was passed by the parliament which
made property right an ordinary legal right, under article 300-A.Today, the
position of right to property in India is well expressed by the Supreme Court of
India in the case of Indian handicraft emporium vs. union of India, where in the
court observe that the right to property is a human right and as a
constitutional right under article 300-A, but it is not the fundamental right
ask so far concerned. which is indeed a statutory right but the claims to the
property would not be property rights.
The constitutional provisions under article 39(b) and 39(c) Reflects the concern
of the state against the concentration of the wealth in the hands of few
detriments of communal absorption.
There should be a Fair and equitable amount of scattering of wealth amid the
country so as to be subservient to the common interest of all sections of the
society which through the instrumentality of law by the State which is a
principle of guiding in regulation of property. The main focus should be on the
socialization of property rather than embrace a tapered individualistic approach
for the nation.
The rule against, marshalling, doctrine of perpetuity, unjust enrichment,
supplanting, performance part etc. Which with a view to ensure just and fair
entertainment of the property Are also absorbed in the property law and
safeguarding it from the exploitation.
The SC in some cases adhered that a citizenís right to admit personal property
is right of human.
There is a well known case of a woman who is 80 year old, this has happened in
1967, where her land was vigorously taken by the Government of Himachal Pradesh
for the construction of the road.
The Court direct the state government for paying compensation to the woman of
total rupees 1 crore by using its astonishing jurisdiction under Article 136 and
Article 142 of the Constitution.
Its the human right of the citizen to bought a personal property. The state have
no right to take ownership of oneís property without succeeding due procedures
and jurisdiction of law.
In an earlier verdict, court in case of State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar
2011, held that:
the right to property is not only a constitutional right but
also right to property is also a human right.
Basic structure which is of constitution can be attained by means of permissible
objectives which are present there in the part III of constitution.