1824 bengal regulation I
1894 Land Acquisition Act
1935 Government of India Act
1950 Constitution of India
1951 first amendment
State of Bihar v. Maharaja
Kameshwar Singh
State of West Bengal v Bela
1954 Banerjee
4th Amendment
1964 17th Amendment
1964 Vajravelu case
Union of India v Metal
1966 Corporation of India Ltd
State of Gujarat v Shantilal
1969 Mangaldass
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs
1969 Union of India
1972 25th Amendment
Kesavananda Bharati v State of
1973 Kerala
State of Karnataka v Ranganatha
1977 Reddy
1978 44th Amendment
2009 Sanjiv Agarwal v Union of India
KT Plantation Private Ltd v State
2011 of Karnataka
The first land acquisition legislation in India was enacted by the British government
same law adopted by the independent India
section 299(2) - payment of compensation mandatory
Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 - right to property - fundamental right
Article 31A- Assent of the President
Article 31B - exemption from judicial review
(1) whether the impugned act is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 (2)Whether the impugned
Act is void as being a fraud on the constitution (3)whether the impugned act authorizes compulsory
acquisition of private property without a public purpose (4) whether the impugned act is bad by
reason of delegation of legislative power
the Court invalidated a law that enabled acquisition of land by the State for resettlement of refugees
following partition of India
multiple Suprem Court interventions - to remedy the multiple litigations coming from zamindars -
more items given the protection of Ninth Schedule
Supreme Court juggling with the idea of 'just compensation' and its applicability
This revision prohibited the acquisition of land used for personal agriculture unless a price equal to
the property's market value was paid.
the Court made a distinction between the following cases: (a) just equivalent; (b) just equivalent but
inadequate; (c) not illusory compensation, but not adequate; and (d) illusory compensation, which
was a colourable exercise of power. The Court held that while it would not intervene in the first
three cases, it was obligated under the Constitution even after the Fourth Amendment to intervene
in the last case. The Court noted that ‘compensation’ must ‘compensate’ and therefore could not be
an illusory sum.
followed Vajravelu
overruled Metal Corporation of India
overruled Shantilal Mangaldass
to oust the Bank Nationalisation case
although the right to property was not part of the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution, even after the
25th Amendment, the Court must inquire whether what is given as compensation is completely
illusory or arbitrary.
the Court could not review the adequacy of compensation, but reiterated the Kesavananda ruling
that compensation could not be completely arbitrary or illusory. But the Court did not clarify the test
of ‘illusory compensation’, implying that this must be determined on a case-by-case basis.
Article 31 and 19(1)(f) removed by Article 300A
Times changing - economic development - land grab from weaker section of the society on the rise
in the name of develoment
Seeking invalidation of the Forty-fourth Constitutional Amendment and reinstatement of the
fundamental right to property. The petitioner cited the large-scale displacements caused by the
creation of special economic zones and by projects such as the Narmada dams and the land conicts
in Singur and Nandigram as motivating his demand
the Supreme Court has reinstated the requirements of ‘public purpose’ and ‘compensation’ within
Article 300A. the ‘rule of law’ prevailed in India and the Court was not ‘powerless’ in a situation
‘where a person as deprived of his property … for a private purpose with or without providing
compensation’, as a result of which any State acquisition of property must satisfy the requirements
of ‘public purpose’ and compensation’ under Article 300A
public purpose - fair valuation
public purpose - Article 31 replication of the section 299
valid law- public purpose - compensation
https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/
amendments/constitution-india-first-amendment-act-1951
decision - no public purpose - violation of article 14- law
unconstitutional
determination of market value in the context of time was the issue-
compensation was valued at an earlier date than the actual
acquisition
https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/
amendments/constitution-india-fourth-amendment-act-1955
https://www.india.gov.in/my-government/constitution-india/
amendments/constitution-india-seventeenth-amendment-act-
1964
restored the Court’s powers of judicial review in cases where the
compensation was illusory.
This amendment replaced the word ‘compensation’ in Article 31(2)
with the word ‘amount’ and expressly ousted judicial review of the
adequacy of compensation
INCONSISTENCY in the approach of the Supreme Court
Right to property ousted from Fundamental rights
Supreme Court dismissed the petition without reaching the merits
on the grounds that the petitioner was a public interest litigant, not
directly aected by the abolition of the fundamental right to
property, and that entertaining the petition would lead them to
reopening settled constitutional case law on property.
