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 under 300A.

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[1].
· Property means the general property in goods, and not merely a special property[2].

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[3], 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[4]. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others[5], 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 legal right[6].

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[7], 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[8]. State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal Bose[9], 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[10] 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 complied with”[11].

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”[12].

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[13]. 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 14.

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[14].

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:

In Minerva Mills v. Union of India[15], 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[16].
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of clause (a) of Article 31A (1) on the test of basic structure[17].

In Waman Rao[18] and I R Coelho case[19], 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 Directive Principles:

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)[20] and 39(c)[21]rather than Article 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution.

The Forty-Second Constitution (Amendment) Act 1976 widens the scope of Article 31C. In Kesavanath Bharathi’s case[22], 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[23], 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.

While in Wanam Rao v. Union of India[24], the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 31C as given in the Kesavanath Bharthi case[25]. But in Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Company Ltd[26], 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 valid.

In Bhim Singhji v. Union of India[27], 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)[28].
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 others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property[29].

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:

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 and resettlement.
The process of land acquisition was governed by Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In Somawati v. State of Punjab[30] 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 acquired[31].
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”[32].

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[33] 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 acquisition.

The Constitutional Right under Article 300A is not the basic feature or structure of the Constitution[34]. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrabhan[35], 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 human rights[36].

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[37], 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[38], 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 otherwise[39].
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[40], the Government can acquire property of any individuals but it shall be used for public purpose and not otherwise.

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[41], 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'[42].

The property acquired by the executive authority should be used only for public purpose.[43] In Wazir Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh[44], 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[45], 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[46].

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 welfare.

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.

Public purpose:
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[47] 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[48].

In Habib Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh[49], 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[50]. 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[51].

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 families.

In Hamabai Framjee Petit v. Secretary of State[52], 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 welfare.

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)[53].

Another case in the with the similar view was given in Kedar Nath Yadav vs State of West Bengal & Others[54], 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[55].

Compensation:
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[56]. 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[57] 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[58].

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[59]. In addition to this the Collector should also consider other factors under Section 28 and award of solatium[60] 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 this Act[61].

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[62], the lands of people belonging to this class can be acquired only as a last resort and only after making a special rehabilitation and resettlement plan.

Chapter V of the Act provides for rehabilitation and resettlement awards. The Collector shall pass the order for Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards[63] for each affected family in terms of the entitlements provided in the Second Schedule[64].

In Nithumul Rajmal Baldata v. Special Land Acquisition Officer[65], Supreme 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 way:
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[66]

Urgency clause:
Section 40[67] 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 thereto.

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 affected families.

Conclusion:
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.

End-Notes
[1] S. 2(c), Benami Transaction Act, 1988.
[2] S. 2(11), Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
[3] Indian Handicrafts Emporium and others v. Union of India and others, (1960) 2 SCR 671.
[4] Supreme Court of India, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1231613/ , last seen on 31/08/2018.
[5] Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd. and others, 2007 (8) SCC 705.
[6] Ibid.
[7] 1954 AIR 119, 1954 SCR 674.
[8] Ibid.
[9] 1954 AIR 92, 1954 SCR 587.
[10] AIR 1970 SC 1461.
[11] Right to Property and Compensation under Indian Constitution, available at http://www.ijtr.nic.in/articles/art41.pdf , last seen on 31/08/2018.
[12] Bela Banerjee and others v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 170.
[13] Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 Supl. (3) 369.
[14] Khajamian Wakt Estates v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 161.
[15] AIR 1980 SC 1789.
[16] Emergence of Article 31A, B and C and its validity, Legal Service India, available 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.
[17] Ambika Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1980 SCR (3) 1159.
[18] (1981) 2 SCC 362, 1981 2 SCR 1.
[19] AIR 2007 SCC 861.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] AIR 1973 SC 1461.
[23] AIR 1980 SC 1789.
[24] AIR 1981 SC 271.
[25] Ibid.
[26] AIR 1983 SC 239.
[27] AIR 1981 SC 234.
[28] Professor Chandrasekeran, Law and Land of Tamil Nadu, 59 (3rd ed, 2018).
[29] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, available at http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights.
[30] AIR 1963 SC 151.
[31] Land Acquisition Act: Issues and Perspective, available at http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/48090/13/13_chapter%206.pdf, last seen on 29/08/2018.
[32] Article 300A, the Constitution of India.
[33] Article 226, the Constitution of India.
[34] Jilubhai Nanbhai Khackar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1995 SC 142.
[35] AIR 1983 SCC 803.
[36] Ibid, at 8.
[37] 343 US 579 (1952, Supreme Court of United State).
[38] State of West Bengal v. Vishnunarayan & Association, (2002) 4 SCC 134.
[39] Professor Chandrasekeran, Law and Land of Tamil Nadu, 60 (3rd ed, 2018).
[40] AIR 1952 SCC 252 (246).
[41] 1962 (2) SCR 69.
[42] Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1338325/
[43] Section 2(1), Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 .
[44] AIR 1954 SC 415.
[45] AIR 1961 SC 1570.
[46] State of West Bengal v Vishnunarayan & Associates (2002) 4 SCC 134.
[47] Section 2, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
[48] 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.
[49] AIR 1965 All. 344 at p. 345.
[50] Land Acquisition in India, available at https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/land-acquisition-india/, last seen on 29/08/2018.
[51] K. Madhava Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 NOC 589 (A.P.)195.
[52] (1914) L.R. 42 I.A. 44.
[53]State of Karnataka v. All India Manufacturing Association (Supreme Court of India, 2016), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/348205/
[54] Supreme Court of India (2016), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/348205/.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Dr. Awasthi’s, ‘Law of Land Acquisition and Compensation’, (Dwivedi Law Agency, Allahabad,1st ed.,2008), p 14.
[57] First Schedule of LARR Act 2013, deals with Compensation for Land Owners.
[58] Section 26, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
[59] Section 27, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
[60] Section 30, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
[61] 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
[62] Section 41, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013.
[63] Section 31, LARR Act 2013.
[64] 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.
[65] AIR 1988 SC 1652.
[66] Ibid, at 9.
[67] 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 30/08/2018.

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
Mesne Profit