Right to Property is a Human Right: SC

Context: Noting that Right to Property is a Human Right, the Supreme Court directed compensation to people who lost their land for the over 20,000-acre Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project, two decades ago. The compensation must be paid according to the market value prevailing in April 2019.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Developments regarding ‘Right to Property’.  

Historical Context

• Government of India Act, 1935: It secured the right to property and contained safeguards against expropriation without compensation and against acquisition for a non-public purpose.
• Inception of Constitution of India: At the inception of the Constitution, the right to property was a fundamental right. Two Articles Art. 31 and Art. 19(1)(f) ensured that any person's right against his property is protected.
• Land reforms: The prevailing socio-economic condition necessitated land reforms.
  • Objective of land reforms: Government needed land to carry out land/ agrarian reforms and construction of public welfare assets, for this, following changes were introduced:
    • (1) Intermediaries were abolished.
    • (2) Ceiling was fixed on land holdings.
    • (3) The cultivating tenant within the ceiling secured permanent rights.
    • (4) In some states, the share of the landlord was regulated by the law.
    • (5) In some states, the tiller of the soil secured cultivating rights against the absentee landlord, and in some states, the rural economy was re-adjusted in such a way that the scattered bits of land of each tenant were consolidated in one place by a process of statutory exchange.
• First Amendment Act, 1951: It introduced Article 31 A and 31 B.
  • Article 31A defined estate to encompass effectively the entire agricultural land, as per the amendment: no law providing for acquisition by the state of an estate could be questioned on the ground that it was inconsistent with or took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19 or 31.
  • Article 31-B declared that none of the acts or regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule nor any of the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be void on the ground that they are inconsistent with Part III.
• Twenty Fifth Constitutional Amendment Act 1971:
  • Curtailed the fundamental right to property.
  • Permitted the acquisition of private property by the government for public use, on the payment of compensation which would be determined by Parliament.
  • Provided that any law made to give effect to the Directive Principles contained in Article 39 (b) or (c) cannot be challenged on the ground of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 19 and 31. 
• GolakNath case: The Supreme Court held that the Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights of the people.
• Kesavananda Bharti case: Upheld the validity of Article 31 C but made it subject to judicial review. Justice H R Khanna held that Right to Property Under Article 19(1)(f) did not pertain to the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Minerva Mills case: Parliament’s power to amend the Constitution was limited, and it could not be used to remove limitations and grant itself “unlimited” and “absolute” powers of amendment. It further said that the Constitution exists on a harmonious balance between Fundamental Rights and DPSPs.
• The 44th Amendment Act of 1978:
  • It abolished the right to property as a Fundamental Right by repealing Article 19(1)(1) and Article 31 from Part III. 
  • Instead, the Act inserted a new Article 300A in Part XII under the heading 'Right to Property'.
  • Thus, the right to property remains a legal right or a constitutional right, though no longer a fundamental right. 
  • It is not a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. 

Present legal status of Right to Property

• Constitution, 44^th Amendment Act: By 44th Amendment Act 1978 of the Constitution of India, a new article namely 300A was inserted and titled as Right to Property. It read as:
  • No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. This article provides restrictions on the State that it cannot take anybody's property without the force of law also interpreted can be deprived of the force of law. 
  • The word 'law' here means a validly enacted law which is just, fair, and reasonable. Thus, making the right to property as a legal and constitutional right, but not a fundamental right.
• The right to property as a legal right (as distinct from the Fundamental Rights) has the following implications:
  • It can be regulated i.e., curtailed, abridged, or modified without constitutional amendment by an ordinary law of the Parliament. 
  • It protects private property against executive action but not against legislative action. 
  • In case of violation, the aggrieved person cannot directly move the Supreme Court under Article 32 (right to constitutional remedies including writs) for its enforcement. He can move the High Court under Article 226.

Recent cases in this Context

• Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2020):
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot take over citizens' property without following due process. The state cannot use the doctrine of adverse possession to claim land without acquisition proceedings. 
• Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram (2024):
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the right to property is a human right, not just a constitutional or statutory right. The court also ruled that the state must pay compensation in a timely manner. 
• Property Owners Association & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2024):
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot take over private properties and call them "community resources". The court further ruled that not all private properties are automatically considered "material resources of the community".
• BMIC land acquisition case (2025):
  • Right to property is a human right in the welfare state and constitutional right under Article 300-A Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
    • The state cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
    • The compensation for acquisition must be paid according to the prevailing market value of the acquired land and not as per the value of the property at the time of the acquisition.