Indian Supreme Court enlists basic principles of acquisition of state property by private citizens.

Indian Supreme Court enlists basic principles of acquisition of state property by private citizens.

The Supreme court of India on Thursday gave such legal remedies under article 300A of the Article 300A of the Indian Constitution which are being carried out for a public purpose, as per the law and there should be a due process of the law.

A two-justice bench including PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar held:A two-justice bench including PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar held:

Similarly, this court through different judgments establishing the procedure that must be followed in order to deprive a person of his right to property, has laid down that those measures will be legally binding irrespective of setting. The described process must have state adherence to that which the statute has provided as the only valid means of an acquisition under Article 300A. Furthermore, a proper acquisition of property is a process regulated by court of laws through use of a procedure whereby the State should be compliant to. Hence, the stipulation of Article 300A leaves procedural justice as the most important of the responsibilities of the Police Monitoring Committee.

Alignment and adherence to these process safeguards play a key role in ensuring that the right to property is protected. It does this by making the processes of property acquisition to be fair, transparent, procedural and to be done on a natural justice basis, which naturally excludes arbitrary power.

In the beginning of 2009, Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMCC) strongarmed its way into Birinchi Bihari Shah’s property at Narkeldanga North Road (the aforementioned property) by force. It follows that the Calcutta High Court was the court that was addressed to by Shah by the petition. The court decision was a favour for the petitioner, the corporation was ordered to go and check the encroachments and not to continue the construction on the property.

Next, the order was challenged in the Calcutta high court by the KMC challenging the court decision with the principle being that the corporation did not follow the legal acquisition proceeding according to the law.

High Court Calcutta had a victory for its ruling and the Supreme Court challenged it. As a result, the land was returned back to the private owner despite the KMC’s attempt to acquire it. The court laid particular emphasis on a landed owner’s strict compliance with the seven procedural rights under Article 300A of the Federal Constitution to avoid invalidity. The court determined that:

• i)One of the most important roles of government is to both discretely and openly inform the owners that they will expropriate their property.
• ii) the state responsibility to give proper hearing of the objection – the right to be heard.
• iii. The government has got to ensure that public is informed about the decision made as well as why it is made.
• iv) The state must show true commitment by proving that the acquisition was for the public cause i.e. it should only be made when such acquisition can serve a public purpose.
• a) Compensation and restitution: as the duty of a state; the right to timely and properly the seasoned justice.
• The appropriate authorities should be careful to conduct the acquisition process in accordance with the time-frame and regulations, thus allowing the individuals and investors to have the right to efficient conduct.
• And the last decision that is taken by the ensuing deliberations which is the right of termination.

It was declared by the Supreme Court in the verdict that KMC has no right to acquire residents land at Narkeldanga North Road for the construction of a public park using the land as a compensation for the community. The tribunal decided that no one has permission to take the already possessed area from the body, hence it is illegal. The bench pointed out that the use of correct and lawful procedures is a sine qua non if one has to compensate others for their properties obtained by administrative means.

Article-300A of the Indian Constitution, explained in 1950 by law-makers, stipulates that individuals cannot be deprived of their property unless such property is formally authorised by any law. This provision will protect the inhabitants from the situation in which the state confiscates the citizens’ property without carrying out the legal procedures in due course.