Rationale and aim of the study:
The Constitution of India being a supreme law of the country, every citizen
should abide by it. It lays down various principles through Fundamental Right
and Directive Principle of State Policy to provide basic amenities to its
subjects. It is said to be the lengthiest written constitution in the world. The
said constitution was adopted from the Constituent Assembly of India.
The foremost aim of this study is to focus on the constitutional validity of
land acquisition in India. Land acquisition is a process where the Government
acquires the private property of an individual to fulfil certain public purpose.
In today’s scenario land acquisition is consider to be a most problematic
issue. The recent issue in land acquisition that comes to our mind is the
Chennai to Salem Highway Project, it created huge predicament situation to
affected families and also to the Government. It is an essential requirement for
every individual to know about law relating to land acquisition because right to
property is consider as a most basic right of everyone.
At once the property right was considered to be a Fundamental Right under Part
III of the Constitution under Article 19(1) (f). But after 44th Constitution
Amendment Act the property right became a constitutional right. This article
predominantly highlighted various constitutional provisions relating to
property. The right to property can be differentiated as before and after 44th
Constitution Amendment Act. This amendment removed Article 31 and replaced it
Whether acquisition of property by the Government is valid or not, in spite of
destroying the basic property right of individual is an impenetrable question
which cannot be made clear. The solution to this question is given in the study
. The Constitution empowers the State to acquire land by paying compensation to
the affected family only if it is necessary for public purpose.
The issue relating to acquisition of land was dealt under Land Acquisition Act
1894 but later on replaced by Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013. This manuscript also
emphasis on compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected
families under LARR Act.
Concept and definition of property:
Property is a description of an asset that can be owned by any person or entity.
Property is of two types tangible and intangible property which confer legal
right on the person who owns it. Every property has some kind of pecuniary
interest over it so it is termed as asset. It usually confers bundle of rights
to the owner by excluding all the others from using or exploiting it.
The term property till now does not have a proper legal definition under any
statute. The important Act that deals with the property is Transfer of Property
Act 1882 which does not have a conventional legal definition for property. But
there are some Acts that define the term property are as follows:
· Property means property of any kind, whether movable or immovable, tangible or
intangible, and includes any right or interest in such property.
· Property means the general property in goods, and not merely a special
Right To Property:
The Constitution of India under the head “Right to Freedom” guarantees certain
Fundamental Right to citizens of India in the form of Article 19, 20, 21A and
22. Right to Property is one among them. The property right can be viewed in two
different perspectives that are before and after 44th Amendment.
The Constitution of India guarantees property right as a Fundamental Right
under Part III of the Constitution. Article 19(1) (f) confer this right to every
citizens of India. Article 19(1) (f) was repealed by 44th Constitutional
(Amendment) Act, 1978. So right to property is not a Fundamental Right after
this amendment and Article 31 was also repealed and replaced by Constitution
44th (Amendment) Act to Article 300A. Therefore the right to property became a
statutory right in India.
Right to Property as a Fundamental Right:
Scope of Article 19(1)(f):
Article 19(1) (f) guarantees fundamental right to property by ensuring that
every citizen has a right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property as they
wish without any restriction because property right is said to be most basic
right available to every class of people without any discrimination with respect
to religion, race , caste and sex. It further provide that, if any property has
been acquired by the appropriate Government for any public purpose the said
Government is under an obligation to pay adequate compensation to the affected
person for the loss caused to them.
Though the Constitution guarantees property right to every citizen it also
imposes certain restriction under Article 19(5). By virtue of this Article the
State has a power to impose reasonable restrictions on the right confer to the
citizen under Article 19 in the interest of general public or in order to
protect the rights of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe.
This was the situation followed till the Forty-Forth Constitution (Amendment)
Act 1978. After this amendment, Article 19(1) (f) was omitted and now Right to
Property is not a Fundamental Right it is merely a legal right in India.
Indian Handcrafts Emporium and others v. Union of India and others
, the Court
held that, the right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property has ceased to
be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, but it continues to be a
legal or constitutional right that no person can be deprived of his property
save and except by and in accordance with law. Further the Supreme Court in
the matter of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke
& Chemicals Ltd. and others
, it was held that right of property is now
considered to be not only a constitutional right but also a human as well as a
Scope of Article 31:
Article 31 of Indian Constitution deals with “Compulsory Acquisition of
Property”, the said Article has undergone various amendments and finally
repealed and replaced to Article 300A. This amendment does not have a
retrospective effect so the validity of this law made prior to the amendment can
be challenged only on ground of violation of Article 14, 19 and 31(2).
In Dwarkadas Srinivas v. Sholapur Spining and Weaving Co Ltd
, the Chief
Justice has laid down certain postulates regarding acquisition under Article 31
of the Constitution, any deprivation of the property should be:
(1) Authorized by law; (Article 31 clause 1)
(2) Necessitated by a public purpose; (Article 31 Clause 2)
(3) Subject to payment of compensation.
Article 31(2) of the Constitution provides that, a property can be acquired by
the Appropriate Government only if the property acquired is wholly used for any
public purpose as may be specified under the Act.
The State is responsible to pay compensation for the property acquired even
though it is not used for acquired purpose. So deprivation of property is enough
to make the State liable to pay compensation to the affected person but it must
be a substantial deprivation. Article 31(1) and (2) have to be read together
while making acquisition. State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose, this
case made it quite clear that the obligation of paying compensation arose only
where the state action resulted in the substantial deprivation of private
property of the individual. The Supreme Court held that the abridgment of right
was not amount to substantial deprivation of the right to property within the
meaning of Article 31.
In famous R.C. Cooper’s case
 popularly known as Bank Nationalization case,
held that the compensation under Article 31(2) implied full monetary equivalent
of the property taken from the owner that is its market value at the date of the
acquisition. The Court observed: “Art 31(2) before and after it was amended
guaranteed a right to compensation for compulsory acquisition of property and
that by giving to the owner, for compulsory acquisition of his property,
compensation which was illusory or determined by the application of principles
which were irrelevant. The constitutional guarantee of compensation was not
The Constitutional (Amendment) Act 1978 came up with important twists and turns
in the area of property right. After this amendment there were only four
Articles that deal with the right to property such as Article 31A, 31B, 31C and
300A. Though these four articles were placed under Part III as fundamental right
but they do not confer the fundamental right in real scenario.
The Constitution (1st Amendment) Act, 1951 inserted Article 31A and Article 31B
with retrospective effect and Article 31C was inserted through 25th Constitution
Amendment Act, 1971. The purpose of these provisions is to provide immunity with
regard to restriction on property rights.
Article 31A – Relating to Acquisition of Estates:
After the independence, the Government of India decided to abolish the Zamindari
system in order to acquire all the properties vested with the zamindari and rich
people, and paid compensation to them for acquisition of their property. But an
important issue faced by Government is regarding payment of compensation, they
felt difficult to compensate the zamindaris from the Government treasury and
there was no explicit definition or amount of compensation specified in any
statute for payment of compensation to aggrieved party.
Articles 31(2) of the Constitution contain provision for compensation but it
does not have any adjectives like “just” or “reasonable” to determine a limpid
compensation. This Article has been challenged frequently before the Court to
look at the word “compensation”. The Supreme Court finally interpreted the term
compensation as “just compensation”.
Analogously, Article 14 and 19(1) (f) was also challenged on the ground
pertaining to land laws and made various land legislations invalid. The Bihar
Land Reform Act 1950 was also one among them which was held unconstitutional on
violating the provision of Article 14 of the constitution, on the ground that,
it classified the zamindaris in a discriminatory manner for the purpose of
compensation. Owing to this issue the Central Government came up with
amendment to insert Article 31A because there was an apprehension that the
entire Zamindari Abolition Program would have been held invalid under Article
Further Article 31A provide that, the State shall acquire any estate or shall
modify any right associated with such estate even without paying any
compensation but the only possibility is that the power exercised by the State
should receive the assent of the President to make it constitutionally valid.
One of the predominant object of Article 31A (1) (a) is to promote the agrarian
reform in order to improve agricultural economy. The term “Agrarian Reform” mean
a process where the Government redistribute the agriculture land to the farmer
and to frame certain reform to develop the agriculture sectors. The Supreme
Court held that, Article 31A (1) (a) does not protect legislation which has no
relation to agrarian reforms.
The Constitution through Seventeenth amendment in 1964, added second proviso to
Article 31A by enlarging the scope of the term ‘estate’ and it imposes certain
limitation to acquire an agriculture property. It provides that the State cannot
acquire land from any person who holds the land for his personal cultivation if
it is within the ceiling limit specified by the Government, in spite of this, if
the State wants to acquire any land they have to pay compensation which shall
not be less than the market value of the property. This mainly protects the
small cultivators who have small acre of land for their own cultivation.
Constitutional validity of Article 31A:
Minerva Mills v. Union of India
, the Court held that the whole of Article
31A is unassailable on the basis of stare decisis, a quietus that should not
allowed to be disturbed.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of clause (a) of Article 31A (1)
on the test of basic structure.
In Waman Rao and
I R Coelho case
, the First Amendment in which the
Article 31A was introduced and Fourth Amendment which substituted new clauses to
this Article has been held constitutional.
Based on the judgment of Minerva Mills, I R Coelho and Waman Rao we shall
emphasize the constitutional validity of Article 31A of the Constitution.
Article 31B – Relating to validation of Acts and Regulation specified
under Ninth Schedule:
The main object of inserting Article 31B to the Constitution is to validate the
Acts and Regulations specified under Ninth Schedule. The Article was inserted by
way of first Constitution (Amendment) Act, 1951.
The Article states that, any Act or Regulation made under the Ninth Schedule
cannot be questioned or challenged on any ground before any Court of law that is
it void or inconsistent with any provision of Fundamental Right.
Article 31C – Relating to saving of laws giving effect to certain
Article 31C of the Constitution gives validity to those laws that are made under
the policy of Directive Principle laid down under Part IV of the Constitution.
This Article was added by 25th Constitution (Amendment) Act 1971.
The position prior to the amendment was that Fundamental Rights were considered
primacy over the Directives Principle of State Policy. But this did not
prevailed for a longer period of time and the position was changed after the
said Constitution amendment. After the amendment the position was that directive
principle was given more important than the fundamental rights. The Article also
imposed more significant on Article 39(b) and 39(c)rather than Article
14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.
The Forty-Second Constitution (Amendment) Act 1976 widens the scope of Article
Kesavanath Bharathi’s case
, the validity of Article 31C of the
Constitution was questioned before the Supreme Court. The Court in this case
upheld the constitution validity of the said Article except the “declaration
part “and also gave primacy to Directive Principle of State Policy over Article
14, 19 and 32 under the Fundamental Rights.
A contravention decision regarding the validity of extended part of Article 31C
was questioned in Minerva Mills’s case, the Supreme Court in this case stuck
down the validity of the extended portion of Article 31C by holding that the
Parliament has enacted the provision beyond the power conferred to it under
Article 368 of the Constitution. And further held that, by giving primacy to
Directive Principle than the Fundamental right would affect the basic structure
of the Constitution.
Wanam Rao v. Union of India
, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutional validity of Article 31C as given in the Kesavanath Bharthi
case. But in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal
Company Ltd, the Supreme Court struck down article 31C as unconstitutional
(Amended portion in 42nd Amendment Act) on the ground that it destroys the
"basic features" of the Constitution. The goal set out in Part IV has to be
achieved without abrogating the means provided for by Part III. Thus there
should be no conflict between the directive principles and the fundamental
rights. These are meant to supplement one another. The Court has upheld that
Article 31C as originally introduced by the 25th Amendment is constitutionally
In Bhim Singhji v. Union of India
, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 was held to be covered and protected by Article 31C, as much as the
purpose of the that law was to inhibit concentration urban land to sub serve the
common good, and that said Act was intended to achieve and implement the purpose
of the Article 39(b) and (c).
Though Article 31A, B and C are under Part III of the Constitution as a
Fundamental Right they do not confer Right to property as a Fundamental Right to
every citizen of India.
International Convention on Right to Property:
Right to property is one of the Human Right conferred to every person. The
property right is recognised at the international perspective under Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
Article 17 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that,
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
It is very difficult to understand the property right in international
perspective neither International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights nor
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have not included
any controversy regarding the definition and interpretation of property right.
Land Acquisition is a process by which the Central Government or the State
Government acquires the private property of an individual for any public
purpose. The acquired property should be used only for public purpose as may be
specified under the law. The individual from whom the property has been acquired
have to be compensated for such acquisition along with a proper rehabilitation
The process of land acquisition was governed by Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In
Somawati v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court held that object of the Land
Acquisition Act was to empower the government to acquire land only for public
purposes or for a company. Where it is for a company the provisions of part VII
should be complied with, only after the government is satisfied that the purpose
of the company is directly connected with or for the construction of some work
which is likely to prove directly useful to the public land, could be
But later on the said Act was replaced by Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2013. At
present this Act is governing all the procedure for acquisition of land.
Constitutional Validity of Land Acquisition:
The Right to Property became a Constitutional Right after the Forty-Forth
Constitution (Amendment) Act 1978. This amendment removed Article 31 and
replaced it under Article 300A. The Constitution assures that “No person shall
be deprived of his property saved by the authority of law”.
The 44th Constitution Amendment came up with two important implications:
1. After this amendment Right to Property was considered as a Constitutional
Right and it is no more a Fundamental Right. Any legislation challenging the
constitutional right to property can be made only before the High Court and
the issue cannot be challenged before the Supreme Court directly under Article
32 of the Constitution.
2. The State is under an obligation to pay compensation for the land
acquired by the Government for any public purpose, but this position has been
changed after 44th amendment by deleting Article 31of the Constitution and the
State is no longer liable to compensate the affected family for such
The Constitutional Right under Article 300A is not the basic feature or
structure of the Constitution. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan
the Supreme held that, after the 44th amendment property right is ceased to be a
Fundamental Right under the Constitution and considered as legal as well as
Power of Executive Authority to interfere with right to property:
The right to property is said to have universal recognition in almost all
democratic countries. In USA also the same principles has been reaffirmed and it
can be witnessed in Youngstown Steel and Tube Co v. Sawyer, the US Supreme
Court held that the acquisition of steel mill by President Decree in the absence
of any appropriate provision under the law was said to be unconstitutional.
The Article 300A of the Constitution permits the Executive authorities with the
power to acquire lands from the individuals when there is an express provision
which authorise them to deprive the property of that individual.
In State of
West Bengal v. Vishnunarayan & Association
, the State Government of West
Bengal undertook eviction of some of the tenants from its property by force,
therefore the Supreme Court held that possession can be resumed by the State
Government only in the manner known to and recognised by the law but not
This Article has a close nexus with the concept of Eminent Domain specified in
Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
Doctrine of Eminent Domain:
This doctrine is derived from the Western countries and was strictly followed in
India. The word Eminent Domain is derived from a Latin expression “Dominium
Eminens”. This concept was introduced by the Hugo Grotius in 17th century.
Doctrine of Eminent Domain means the power of King or the Government to deprive
the property of an individual this also includes the private property of a
person at the interest of general public. Nevertheless, the King or the
Government can acquire the property only after paying a reasonable compensation
to the affected families.
This Doctrine is mainly emphasized on two Latin maxims:
1. Salus populi est suprema lex, which means the welfare of the common
people is the paramount law.
2. Necessita pubic major est quam, which means public necessity is greater
than private necessity.
The State can exercise this power only when the private property of an
individual is ultimately required for completion of any public project, but the
property can be acquired only in the lieu of paying compensation prescribed by
the appropriate authority reasonably. The impact of this doctrine can be
witnessed in almost every civilised country. An important judgment given by the
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, the Government can
acquire property of any individuals but it shall be used for public purpose and
Protection of individual property against arbitrary executive authority:
Article 300A provides protection to individual against the arbitrary action of
executive authorities. In Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, the Court held that State or its executive officers do not have any
right to take law into their own hands and to remove a person by an executive
order. The Court further observed, 'before we part with this case, we feel it
our duty to say that executive action taken in this case by the State and its
officers is destructive of the basic principles of the rule of law'.
The property acquired by the executive authority should be used only for public
purpose. In Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh
, goods seized from
the aggrieved person is done without any express authority under the law so the
Court ordered to return the goods seized from the appellant’s possession and
further pointed out that executive authority cannot interfere with the property
rights of an individual if there is no specific rule of law authorises such act.
An important judgment given by the Supreme Court with regard to illegal eviction
of a person from his property without any proper authority in Bishan Das v.
State of Punjab
, the Court ordered that the State does not have authority to
take law into their hand by provided such a power to the executive authority to
evict a person from his property by illegal means and such an action would
destroy the basic principle of rule of law in the country.
The Supreme Court has again described the action of the State Government in
evicting some tenants from its property by force. The Court has ruled that
’possession can be resumed by the State Government only in a manner known to or
recognised by law and it cannot resume possession otherwise than in due course
of law’. The Court has further asserted that in the absence of a specific
statutory provision, a person cannot be evicted by the executive by force
without following ‘due course of law even on the ground of public interest.
Land Acquisition Under LARR Act:
In India, land acquisition is governed by the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act
2013. This Act replaced the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
The main purpose for enacting this Act is to provide certain rules and
regulation for acquiring land and also for granting compensation, rehabilitation
and resettlement to the affected families. The Act mainly emphasizes to provide
adequate compensation to individuals whose properties are acquired as per the
direction of the Government. The Central or State Government have power to
acquire the land even if it is against the will of the individual but they have
to make sure that the aggrieved individuals are compensated to the loss suffered
by them. The property acquired under the Act should be used only for public
The LARR Act provides certain procedures to be followed by the State government
in order to make the land acquisition constitutionally valid. The procedure
begins with serving preliminary notification to the affected party ends after
providing proper rehabilitation and resettlement measures to them.
This Act provides prominence to public purpose, by highlighting that the land
can be acquired by the appropriate Government only if it is utilised for public
purpose. The term public purpose is defined under the Act so that only after
satisfying the condition under this Section the property can be obtained from
the individuals. It divides public purpose under two categories such as
strategic and infrastructural purpose. This Section empowers certain power and
also imposes restriction on State Government before acquiring any land.
The expression of “public purpose” has been enlarged by Law Commission of India
so as bring it within the ambit of Land Acquisition Act, the purpose for which
State may wish to acquire land.
In Habib Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh
, the Court held that neither the
notification nor the declaration can be quashed on the ground that there was no
necessity for acquiring the land for a public purpose. Whether the land is
required for a public purpose or not has to be decided solely by the State
Government. The Court observed that it is duty of Court to determine
whenever question is raised whether acquisition is or not for public purpose.
However, prima facie Government is the best judge as to whether acquisition is
for public purpose. But it is not sole judge.
The land acquisition can be held valid constitutionally only if it satisfies the
criteria of public purpose and along with paying compensation to the affected
In Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State
, the Government gave certain
land on lease in Bombay and they also have power to take over the possession of
the land under the term of lease but only after paying compensation to its
subjects. After a point of time the Government send a notice for resuming the
possession over the land and to use the said land for providing residential
accommodation to the public servant. The court held that possession resumes by
the Government is valid on the basis that the property resumed is for public
The most recent judgments given by the Supreme Court on public purpose is State
of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers Organization
, in this case land far away
from the actual alignment of the road and periphery had been acquired for
constructing highway and, therefore, even if the implementation of the Highway
Project was assumed to be for the public purpose, the acquisition of
the land far away therefrom would not amount to a public purpose nor would it be
covered by the provisions of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act,
1966 (the KIAD Act).
Another case in the with the similar view was given in Kedar Nath Yadav vs State
of West Bengal & Others
, the lands in question were acquired by the State
Government for a particular Company (TML), at the instance of that Company.
Further, the exact location and site of the land was also identified by TML.
Even the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act clearly
state that the land in question was being acquired for the ‘Small Car Project’
of TML. In view of the foregoing reasons, by no stretch of imagination can such
an acquisition of lands be held to be one for ‘public purpose’ and not for a
company. If the acquisition of lands in the instant case does not amount to one
for the company.
Compensation means anything given to make the things equivalent; a thing given
to or make good for loss and the term ‘compensation’ is used to indicate what
constitutes or is regarded as equivalent or recompense for loss or
privation. Compensation should be provided by the appropriate Government for
the land acquired for any public purpose. The procedure to provide compensation
is specified under Schedule I of the Act. The compensation should be
granted as per the market value of the land determined by the Collector. The
Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and determining the
market value of the land, namely:—
1. the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of
1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell, as the case may
be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
2. the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest
village or nearest vicinity area; or
3. consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-section (2) of
section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private companies or for public
private partnership projects, whichever is higher
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on
which the notification has been issued under section 11.
The Collector having determined the market value of the land to be acquired
shall calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land owner
(whose land has been acquired) by including all assets attached to the land.
In addition to this the Collector should also consider other factors under
Section 28 and award of solatium while making compensation.
Section 107 of the Act deals with the power of the State Legislature to enact
any law for providing higher compensation and to make provisions for
rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than provided under
Rehabilitation and Resettlement:
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act provides for rehabilitation and resettlement
to the individuals whose lands are acquired by Government for public purpose.
The rehabilitation and resettlement scheme are prepared under Section 16 and 17
of the Act. An additional benefit is also provided for Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribe, the lands of people belonging to this class can be acquired
only as a last resort and only after making a special rehabilitation and
Chapter V of the Act provides for rehabilitation and resettlement awards. The
Collector shall pass the order for Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Awards for each affected family in terms of the entitlements provided in the
In Nithumul Rajmal Baldata v. Special Land Acquisition Officer
Court observed the following factors. Observations made by the Supreme Court
about the legal status of reference Court may be applicable to the Reference
Authority. Hence, we can say the observations of the Supreme Court in following
1. A reference under section 18 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act is not an
appeal against the award.
2. The Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a
judgment of the trial Court. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition
officer as such it is not as an appellate Court.
3. The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority has to
treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market
value afresh on the basis of the material proceeded before it.
4. The claimant comes to the status of plaintiff he has to prove that the
price offered for his land in the award is inadequate.
5. The market value of land which is acquired has to be determined
Section 40 of the Act deals with special power in case of urgency to acquire
land in certain case,
1. In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the
Collector, though no such award has been made, may, on the expiration of thirty
days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 21, take possession
of any land needed for a public purpose and such land shall thereupon vest
absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances.
2. The powers of the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) shall be
restricted to the minimum area required for the defence of India or national
security or for any emergencies arising out of natural calamities or any other
emergency with the approval of Parliament
3. Before taking possession of any land under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2), the Collector shall tender payment of eighty per content of the
compensation for such land as estimated by him to the person interested entitled
4. An additional compensation of seventy-five percent of the total
compensation as determined under section 27 shall be paid by the Collector in
respect of land and property for acquisition of which proceedings have been
initiated under sub-section (1) of this section.
General procedure to be followed while making land acquisition will be exempted
if any land has been acquired by any of the above mentioned reason.
All the provision specified above under the LARR Act should be followed by the
Government in order to make acquisition of land constitutionally valid at the
same time they are also under an obligation to provide adequate remedy to the
Right to property thought it is not a Fundamental Right under the Constitution
but still it is consider as a basic rights of every individual. Not only our
Indian Constitution but also Universal Declaration of Human Rights has also
emphasized the same. The recent land acquisition issue is the Chennai – Salem
Highway Project, for this project around 248 hectare of land in Salem from 20
villages will be acquired and this also includes many hectare of agriculture
land. Similarly in Gujarat around 1400 hectares of land and in Maharashtra 1200
hectares of land acquired for Bullet Train Project affecting more than 6000 land
owners. Though land acquisition process is done in order to develop the economic
status of the country. But at the same time this should not affect the basic
livelihood of the citizen, development can be accepted only if it is mutually
advantage to Government as well as to its subject and acquiring of agricultural
land should be consider only as a last resort. The land acquisition is
constitutionally valid under Article 300A but only after providing appropriate
compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected family.
 S. 2(c), Benami Transaction Act, 1988.
 S. 2(11), Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
 Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others v. Union of India and others, (1960)
2 SCR 671.
 Supreme Court of India, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1231613/ ,
last seen on 31/08/2018.
 Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and
others, 2007 (8) SCC 705.
 1954 AIR 119, 1954 SCR 674.
 1954 AIR 92, 1954 SCR 587.
 AIR 1970 SC 1461.
 Right to Property and Compensation under Indian Constitution, available
at http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art41.pdf , last seen on 31/08/2018.
 Bela Banerjee and others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 170.
 Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 Supl. (3) 369.
 Khajamian Wakt Estates v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 161.
 AIR 1980 SC 1789.
 Emergence of Article 31A, B and C and its validity, Legal Service India,
at http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/1435/Emergence-of-Article-31-A,-B-and-C-and-its-validity.html ,
last seen on 30/08/2018.
 Ambika Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1980 SCR (3) 1159.
 (1981) 2 SCC 362, 1981 2 SCR 1.
 AIR 2007 SCC 861.
 Article 39(b), the Constitution of India, states that the ownership and
control of the material resources of the community are as distributed as
best to sub serve the common good.
 Article 39(c), the Constitution of India, states that, the operation of the
economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment.
 AIR 1973 SC 1461.
 AIR 1980 SC 1789.
 AIR 1981 SC 271.
 AIR 1983 SC 239.
 AIR 1981 SC 234.
 Professor Chandrasekeran, Law and Land of Tamil Nadu, 59 (3rd ed, 2018).
 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, available
 AIR 1963 SC 151.
 Land Acquisition Act: Issues and Perspective, available
last seen on 29/08/2018.
 Article 300A, the Constitution of India.
 Article 226, the Constitution of India.
 Jilubhai Nanbhai Khackar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142.
 AIR 1983 SCC 803.
 Ibid, at 8.
 343 US 579 (1952, Supreme Court of United State).
 State of West Bengal v. Vishnunarayan & Association, (2002) 4 SCC 134.
 Professor Chandrasekeran, Law and Land of Tamil Nadu, 60 (3rd ed, 2018).
 AIR 1952 SCC 252 (246).
 1962 (2) SCR 69.
 Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, available
 Section 2(1), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .
 AIR 1954 SC 415.
 AIR 1961 SC 1570.
 State of West Bengal v Vishnunarayan & Associates (2002) 4 SCC 134.
 Section 2, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
 10th Law Commission Report, Law of Acquisition and Requisitioning of Land,
4 () available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report10.pdf, last
seen on 30/08/2018.
 AIR 1965 All. 344 at p. 345.
 Land Acquisition in India, available
at https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/land-acquisition-india/, last seen on
 K. Madhava Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 NOC 589 (A.P.)195.
 (1914) L.R. 42 I.A. 44.
State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturing Association (Supreme Court of
India, 2016), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/348205/
 Supreme Court of India (2016), available
 Dr. Awasthi’s, ‘Law of Land Acquisition and Compensation’, (Dwivedi Law
Agency, Allahabad,1st ed.,2008), p 14.
 First Schedule of LARR Act 2013, deals with Compensation for Land Owners.
 Section 26, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
 Section 27, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
 Section 30, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, available
 Section 41, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
 Section 31, LARR Act 2013.
 The Second Schedule of LARR Act 2013, deals with Elements of Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Entitlements for All The Affected Families (Both Land Owners
and The Families Whose Livelihood is Primarily Dependent on Land Acquired) in
Addition to Those Provided in The First Schedule.
 AIR 1988 SC 1652.
 Ibid, at 9.
 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, available
at http://www.legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A2013-30.pdf , last seen
Related Articles on Land Acquisition:
The Outlook of Land Acquisition Bill
Land Acquisition - A Critical Analysis
Compensation on Acquisition of Agricultural and Non- Agricultural Land
Company: Meaning and Interpretation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Constitutional Validity of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984
Land Acquisition for SEZ
Land Acquisition Act - Under the Scanner of the Supreme Court
Tenancy Reforms in India
To SEZ or not to SEZ
Right To Property