Right to property, constitutional right…historic decision of Supreme Court on delay in compensation, know what is the whole matter

New Delhi : The Supreme Court has said that the right to property is a constitutional right. A person cannot be deprived of his/her property unless he/she is given just compensation in accordance with law.Justice B. R. Gavai and Justice K. V. Vishwanathan’s bench said that the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act of 1978, but it remained a human right in a welfare state and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. According to Article 300-A, any person can be deprived of his/her property only under the authority of law.

The Supreme Court decision came on an appeal challenging a November 2022 judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which was related to land acquisition under the Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project (BMICP). The bench said that although the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is a constitutional right under the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

Strong comment on delay in compensation
The Supreme Court observed that the preliminary notification to acquire land for the project was issued by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) in 2003. The possession of the land of the appellants was taken over in November 2005. The bench said that for the last 22 years the land owners did not receive any compensation for their property. This delay was due to the lax attitude of the state and KIADB officials.

The court also said that if compensation was given at the 2003 market rate, it would be a travesty of justice. The court, exercising its powers under Article 142, directed that the compensation be determined on the basis of the market rate as on April 22, 2019. The Supreme Court has immense special powers under Article 142. The Supreme Court directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) to take a fresh decision within two months based on 2019 rates. Also, if the parties are dissatisfied with the compensation, they reserve the right to file a legal challenge.

nbt lens

The decision is an example
The Supreme Court has said that compensation in land acquisition cases should be determined and distributed as soon as possible, so that land owners are not deprived of their legitimate rights. This judgment not only ensures the protection of the rights of land owners, but also underlines that violation of constitutional rights cannot be ignored.