New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said compulsory acquisition of private properties would be unconstitutional if due process was not established or followed before depriving a person of his property rights. In a significant judgment, the top court said that even the statutory scheme of payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of private property would not be fair if due process is not followed by the State and its instrumentalities. Justice P.S. Making this comment, the bench of Justice Narasimha and Justice Arvind Kumar rejected the appeal of Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
The High Court had canceled the acquisition of the property
Kolkata Municipal Corporation had approached the apex court challenging the decision of a bench of Calcutta High Court. The High Court had quashed the acquisition of a property on Narkeldanga North Road in the city for the construction of a park. The High Court had held that the municipal body had no power under a specific provision for compulsory acquisition. The top court in its judgment said, ‘We are of the considered opinion that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the writ petition and dismissing the case of land acquisition by the appellant-Corporation under Section 352 of the Act. The impugned decision does not deserve to be interfered with in any way.
‘Undue emphasis is given on compensation provisions’
Justice Narasimha said in the 32-page judgment, ‘Under our constitutional scheme, it is well established to comply with fair process of law before depriving any person of his immovable property. Even assuming that Section 363 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act provides for compensation, compulsory acquisition would still be unconstitutional if proper procedure is not established or followed before depriving a person of his right to property. ‘ It states that undue emphasis is placed on compensation provisions to justify the power of compulsory acquisition, as if compensation is the entire process of legitimate acquisition.
What else did the Supreme Court say in its decision?
Article 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution states that ‘No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law’ and has been described as both a constitutional and human right. The bench said, ‘To assume that the constitutional protection is limited to the mandate of fair compensation would be a fraudulent interpretation of the text and, we would say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Constitution.’ (Language)
Latest India News