Evolution of the Right to Property in India
The Right to Property has undergone one of the most dramatic transformations
in Indian constitutional history. Initially a fundamental right, it was later
diluted and converted into a constitutional legal right through the 44th
Amendment Act, 1978. This change was not abrupt, but instead developed
through a series of legislative actions and landmark court decisions, reflecting the
tension between individual rights and societal reforms in post-independence
India.
Constitutional Protection Before the 44th Amendment
Under the original Constitution, the Right to Property was protected under
Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. Article 19(1)(f) granted citizens the right
to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, while Article 31 provided that citi-
zens could not be deprived of property except by authority of law, with the
requirement of compensation when property was acquired by the State.
The tension between property rights and land reforms led to numerous legal chal-
lenges, and the courts were often called upon to examine the balance between
individual rights and state interests.
Case Law: Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar (1952) The case in-
volved a challenge to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, which sought to abolish
the zamindari system. The Patna High Court struck down the law for vio-
lating property rights, as it failed to provide adequate compensation. This
judgment highlighted the protection of property rights under Article 31 and
led to significant legislative amendments, including the First Constitutional
Amendment, which inserted Articles 31A and 31B, making land reform
laws immune to judicial review.
Case Law: K. K. Verma v. Union of India (1955) This case emphasized
the constitutional protection against arbitrary deprivation of property. The
Supreme Court upheld Article 31, ruling that the State must provide com-
pensation if it acquired private property. It was part of a larger pattern where
courts protected individual property rights against state interference, despite
the passage of land reforms.
Kesavananda Bharati Case and the Turning Point
The most significant development before the 44th Amendment was the Kesa-
vananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case. This case was a turning
point in constitutional jurisprudence, as it addressed the scope of Parliament’s
amending power and the basic structure doctrine.
Case Law: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) In this
landmark judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could amend any
1
part of the Constitution, but could not alter its basic structure. Although
property rights were not considered part of the basic structure, the case
raised critical questions about the tension between the protection of individual
rights and the need for socio-economic reforms. The case underscored the
growing conflict between property rights and government efforts to bring about
progressive land reforms.
The 44th Constitutional Amendment and Article 300-A
The 44th Amendment Act, 1978 marked a significant shift by repealing
Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, which had guaranteed the right to property as a
fundamental right. It introduced Article 300-A, which provides that no
person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.
This change dramatically reduced the constitutional protection for property
and instead made it a constitutional legal right under Article 300-A. The
amendment also removed the requirement of compensation from the Con-
stitution, thus making property acquisition laws more flexible for the State.
Case Law: Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (1995)
The Jilubhai case was crucial in interpreting the scope of Article 300-A.
The petitioners challenged the acquisition of land under Gujarat’s land ceiling
laws. The Supreme Court upheld the State’s acquisition, ruling that the right to
property was no longer a fundamental right. It also emphasized that Article
300-A only protects against arbitrary deprivation of property, and the issue of
compensation is determined by statutory law.
The Court clarified that under Article 300-A, the right to property could be
taken away by the State if the deprivation is done according to law. There-
fore, the State could acquire property for public purposes as long as the legal
framework was followed.
Further Landmark Cases: Narmada Bachao Andolan and Others
After the 44th Amendment, the protection of property rights continued to be
subject to interpretation based on public interest and the state’s authority to
take land for developmental projects. The following cases provide further
insight into the limits of Article 300-A.
Case Law: Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others
(2000) The Narmada Bachao Andolan case dealt with the acquisition
of land for the Sardar Sarovar Dam project in the Narmada Valley, which
involved displacing thousands of people. The petitioners argued that the acqui-
sition violated their rights under Article 300-A and that proper rehabilitation
and compensation were not provided.
The Supreme Court upheld the acquisition of the land, emphasizing the public
purpose behind the project. The Court ruled that while Article 300-A protects
2
against arbitrary deprivation of property, public interest could justify land
acquisition for developmental projects, provided the process was carried out in
accordance with law and natural justice principles. This case reaffirmed the
limited scope of Article 300-A and the primacy of public welfare.
Case Law: State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh (1998) In State of
Punjab v. Gurdev Singh, the Court upheld the State’s power to acquire
land for a public purpose, despite the claim of inadequate compensation. The
Court ruled that under Article 300-A, as long as the acquisition was done
through valid legislation and was not arbitrary, the rights of the landowner
could be overridden by the State’s power to acquire land for public welfare.
This case further reinforced the statutory framework within which the right
to property operates post-44th Amendment.
Conclusion
The transformation of the Right to Property from a fundamental right to
a constitutional legal right reflects India’s shift towards a more welfare-
oriented approach to constitutional governance. The 44th Amendment and
the insertion of Article 300-A were pivotal in balancing individual property
rights with the needs of the State to implement socio-economic reforms.
While property rights continue to be protected, their scope has been signifi-
cantly narrowed. Now, property can be acquired by the State as long as it
is done through valid legal processes, and compensation is determined by
statutory law. The landmark cases discussed, particularly Kesavananda
Bharati, Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar, and Narmada Bachao Andolan,
highlight the evolution of the Right to Property in India, reinforcing the idea
that the public interest may override individual property rights, provided the
process follows established legal principles.
