Proper Procedure Essential for Compulsory Acquisition of Private Property: SC

GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 17th May. The Supreme Court declared on Thursday that the compulsory acquisition of private property is unconstitutional if the proper procedure is not established or followed, reaffirming the right to property as a fundamental safeguard under the law.

In a significant verdict, a bench comprising Justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar emphasized that even if compensation is provided for the acquisition of private properties, the process remains unjustified if the state and its instrumentalities do not adhere to due procedure.

The ruling came as the bench dismissed an appeal from the Kolkata Municipal Corporation, which had challenged a division bench judgment of the Kolkata High Court. The High Court had quashed the acquisition of property at Narkeldanga North Road intended for constructing a park, citing the civic body’s lack of power under a specific provision to undertake compulsory acquisition.

“We are of the considered opinion that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the writ petition and rejecting the case of the appellant-Corporation acquiring land under Section 352 of the Act. The impugned judgment does not brook interference on any count,” the Supreme Court stated in its 32-page judgment.

The top court highlighted the importance of a fair procedure, noting that undue emphasis on compensation alone cannot justify compulsory acquisition. Justice Narasimha remarked, “Under our constitutional scheme, compliance with a fair procedure of law before depriving any person of his immovable property is well entrenched.”

The judgment underscored that the Article 300A of the Constitution, which states that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law,” remains a critical protection against arbitrary and hasty acquisitions. It characterized this provision as both a constitutional and a human right.

“To assume that constitutional protection gets constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation would be a disingenuous reading of the text and, shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution,” the court said.

The Supreme Court delineated seven sub-rights that are foundational to a law compliant with Article 300A:

1. Right to Notice: Duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire their property.
2. Right to Be Heard: Duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition.
3. Right to a Reasoned Decision: Duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire.
4. Public Purpose: Duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose.
5. Right to Restitution or Fair Compensation: Duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate.
6. Right to an Efficient Process: Duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines.
7. Right of Conclusion: Final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting.

The absence of any of these components would render the law susceptible to challenge, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s stance that procedural fairness is indispensable in the compulsory acquisition of private property.