Why is it in the news?

• The Supreme Court in a judgment emphasized that the state is not allowed to acquire private property without adhering to the required procedures.
• The judgment clarified the responsibilities of the government before taking over property for public purposes.

Key Takeaways

• The right to private property is protected as a constitutional right and is considered a human right.
• The Court declared that compulsory acquisition without following mandatory procedures and providing compensation to the owners would not be considered
• It is not sufficient for an acquisition to possess the power of eminent domain and grant reasonable compensation. The proper procedure must be established and followed before depriving individuals of their property rights.
• The Court upheld a Calcutta High Court order that rejected an appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation defending its acquisition of private land. The corporation was ordered to pay ₹5 lakh in costs within 60 days.
• Though the 44th Constitutional Amendment removed the right to property as a fundamental right, Article 300A was simultaneously included in the Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law.

Seven basic procedural rights were identified by the Court that constitute the essence of the right to property under Article 300A. These rights include:

• The right to notice, informing the person about the intention to acquire their property.
• The right to be heard, allowing objections to the acquisition to be voiced and considered.
• The right to a reasoned decision, informing the person of the government’s decision to acquire their property.
• The obligation of the state to demonstrate that the acquisition is exclusively for public purpose.
• The right to fair compensation for the citizen.
• The duty of the state to conduct the acquisition process efficiently and within specified timelines.
• The right to conclude the proceedings leading to vesting, ensuring the finality of the acquisition.
• Further, the Court clarified that the acquisition process is only complete when actual physical possession of the land is taken by the state.