March 2, 2024

Voice of Barristers

-We make law easy-

EMERGENCE OF ARTICLE  300A IN INDIA

5 min read
Spread the love

Property rights are one of the most controversial human rights, both in terms of their existence and interpretation.  When independent India first adopted the Constitution, the property rights set out in Article 19 (1) (f) were fundamental rights and were therefore placed on a high pedestal. Article 19 (1) (f) had to be read together with Article 31 of the Constitution to prevent the government from robbing a person’s property without “legal authority”. Both Articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 caused serious headaches to the Government of India. These provisions have made it very difficult for the government to continue the socialist agenda of land reform and nationalization plans. One for paying fair compensation to the land and company he acquired. The Janata Party then passed the 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India. As part of these changes, both Articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 have been removed from the Constitution. These have been removed from the Basic Rights chapter and moved to Chapter IV of Part XII in the form of Section 300A.

Article 300A Of Indian Constitution

 Property rights can be regarded as natural human rights in a sense. This is a highly controversial issue affecting many countries, including the European Union. Property rights were originally considered basic rights in India but have been reduced to mere constitutional rights by the 44th amendment of the Constitution of India under Article 300 (A). Although seeming simple, property rights under the Indian Constitution have a unique history that can be described as a long regulatory conflict between the Indian legislature and the judiciary.

The 1951 Constitutional Amendment (1st Amendment) added the 9th schedule to the Constitution and two more Articles 31A and 31B to enact a law that would ultimately allow Zamindar in court. Article 31 dealing with property rights was amended in many ways by the Fourth Amendment of 1955. The purpose of these changes was to give the government more authority over the forced acquisition and confiscation of private property. The court in the bank’s nationalization case revealed two things:

  • The right to compensation equal to the monetary value of compulsorily acquired assets is constitutionally guaranteed.
  •  Disposed owners must be compensated for the value of their property in accordance with the Constitution (fair compensation for loss of property).

The doctrine of eminent domain provides constitutional rights to property under Section 300A, and statutory rights under the Property Transfer Act of 1881. The government has the authority to use our property for public purposes such as the construction of roads and bridges. The essential components of this teaching are:

  • Property is taken for the public good.
  • Forfeited assets will be compensated.

The opposition to Articles 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution as fundamental rights began shortly after its enactment in 1950. After several court battles over this delicate issue, the Janata government introduced Amendments 44, acquiring property rights as fundamental rights, and replacing them with Article 300a, which was reduced to statutory rights. rice field. The Minerva Mills case[1] and the subsequent Waman Rao case[2] strengthened the basic structural theory first introduced in the famous Kesavananda Bharati case[3].

The basic property right was retained. The court ruled that the amendment did not violate the spirit of the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Property rights are no longer fundamental rights, but constitutional and human rights (like the decisions of various courts such as Haryana Vs. Mukesh Kumar[4].

After the abolition of the basic right of property, the Supreme Court recognized the value of the property as the basic right of Bhim Singh Vs. Indian Union[5]. In the absence of a fundamental right to this property, it evoked a second fundamental right of equality, the concept of validity under Article 14, overturning certain provisions of the City Land and Ceiling Act. According to the Supreme Court of B.K., property rights are not fundamental rights, but valuable constitutional rights. Rabbi Chandra Vs. The Indian Union[6] instructed the Center to return the land to its owners. In a recent case, Vajranga Vs. Madhya Pradesh[7] stated that “property rights remain constitutional rights under Article 300A of the Constitution,” but the government acquired ownership of surplus land even though there was none.

Under Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, the rights of property rights can only be taken by the author’s rights as well as the Constitution or Legal, but by the authority of the law from the High Court of Narayan Prasad Vs. Chhattisgarh (2017). “The 3rd Third Article 33 describes that one person’s ownership can be deleted based on the Presidential correction without exceptional permission. Property right Rights are no longer fundamental rights. Still due to the constitution protected as constitutional and human rights, “Ala Havad’s High-equivalent reminded the government. In the case of Gayatri Devi Vs. UP status (2019). As of, property rights and their protection have long been a topic of the town and not a new concept, so the act of converting property rights from basic rights to statutory rights was carried out to preserve the rights. Of people as well as reducing the accumulated rights of zamindars. Therefore, property rights no longer hold as basic rights, but constitutional property rights must survive for justice. Ownership is part of the basic structure and can be changed.

Conclusion:

Citizens’ right to private property is a human right. The state may not own it without due process and legal authority. The bench referred to the previous judgment of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar[8], arguing that property rights are not only constitutional or statutory rights but also human rights. Unfavourable Ownership Principle: The state cannot infringe on the private property of its citizens and claim ownership of the land in the name of harmful ownership. If you steal private land and claim it to be yours, the nation becomes an intruder. When the government took over the country in 1967, the right to private property was still a fundamental right under Article 31 of the Constitution. With Article 44 of the 1978 Constitutional Amendment, property rights are no longer basic rights. It became a constitutional right under Article 300A. Section 300A requires the state to comply with due process and legal authority to deprive a person of private property.

References:

  • M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law: An Exhaustive Commentary on the Subject containing case-law reference, Indian & Foreign, Wadhwa and Company Nagpur, New Delhi, 6th Edn., 2007.
  • Prof. Narender Kumar, Constitutional Law of India, Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana 8th Edn., 2011.
  • Prashant Reddy, Article 300 of the constitution: A constitutional Right to ‘data exclusivity? SpicyIP, 2010.
  • Mohd Aqib Aslam, Right to Property and Judicial Findings Article 300-A, Legal Service India E-Journal.

Mahek Panjwani

Alliance University, school of law, Bangalore

Batch of 2020-2025


[1] 1980 AIR 1789

[2] (1981) 2 SCC 362

[3] AIR 1973 SC 1461

[4] AIR 2012 SC 559

[5] 19 (1981) DLT 446

[6] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1460/2010

[7] CIVIL APPEAL No.6209 of 2010

[8] 2011 10 SC 404

Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © All rights reserved by Voice of Barristers. | Built by Jagadish Naidu |