Skip to main content

Right to Property

 Right to Property was earlier a fundamental right enshrined under Part III of the Constitution under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 but it was deleted. The Constitution 44th (Amendment) Act,1978 introduced the Right to Property which is a single Article 300A enshrined under Chapter 4 in Part 12 of the Constitution.

According to Article 300-A “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.  It is clear that the State has to only enact a law by which the property can be acquired. The said law should be just, fair, reasonable in the eyes of law and is under the ambit of Judicial review. A person aggrieved from such law doesn’t have the option to file a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution but has the option under Article 226 of the Constitution because the ambit of Article 226 is much wider.

Whether Right to Property is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution according to basic structure theory? It was answered in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar V. State of Gujarat (AIR 1995 SC 142) that Article 300-A is not under the ambit of the doctrine of basic structure theory but the right to property is a Constitutional right.

One important concept which is important to know is the concept of Eminent Domain. It was explained by the Judiciary in the case of Charanjit Lal v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 41) The Court explained that it is the inherent right and duty of the Government to work for the public necessity. Thus, taking property that belongs to an individual and using that property for public use is the meaning of Eminent Domain. It is based on the doctrine of “Salus populi est superema lex” which translates or means the welfare of the public. Another maxim that is associated with it is “necessita public major est quam” which means that the public necessity is greater than private necessity. Thus, according to this, the State can acquire property to build bridges, schools, colleges, libraries, dams, parks, airports, etc for the benefit of the public at large. 

Another important question that arises is whether Article 300A provides for the Right to Compensation?

This was answered in the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd V. State of Karnataka (AIR 2011 SC 3430) and Bhagauji V. State of Maharashtra (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 982)

The summary of the above two judgments is that though it is not expressly mentioned in Article 300-A of the Constitution about the compensation though it can be inferred from the Article itself. If a person is disposed of his property without any compensation, then it is a violation of his human rights and is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the right to claim compensation is inbuilt in Article 300A when a person is deprived of the property.

What constitutes property?

Property is not only confined to land in Article 300-A but it includes intangible properties like patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial design, etc. It includes both corporeal and incorporeal rights.

It is to be noted that though the acquisition of land does not violate any constitutional or fundamental right but the person is entitled to rehabilitation and re-settlement. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more