The Government cannot change the land usage after acquiring land for public purpose and all such acquisition would remain open to judicial scrutiny, ruled the Supreme Court in a landmark decision on Tuesday.
Dealing with separate matters from Karnataka and Uttarakhand, the five-judge Constitution Bench declared that acquisition can be for public purpose alone and must come with adequate compensation.
Since the right to property ceased to exist as a fundamental right after 1978 (through the 44th Constitutional Amendment), the only check that remained on the Government from acting arbitrarily by usurping private land was contained in Article 300A that vaguely placed the right as “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
After individuals in Karnataka and Uttarakhand challenged separate laws enacted by the respective State Governments claiming their right on land under Article 300A, it became essential for the Supreme Court to determine under what circumstances land can be acquired, and whether a bad acquisition can be challenged.
The five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justices Mukundakam Sharma, KS Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar and Anil Dave examined the scope of this Article and said, “Deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 300A, generally speaking must take place for public purpose or public interest.”
Putting a strict check on the Government against using it for any other purpose, the Bench further observed, “The purpose must be primarily public and not primarily of private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public.”
With both public purpose and right to claim compensation made preconditions to acquire land, the Bench said, “The State has to justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object, and purpose of the legislature and other related factors.”
The court was dealing with a law passed by the Karnataka legislature titled “Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act 1996” by which the Government acquired 470 acres containing valuable trees, paintings and artworks left by Russian artist Swetoslav Roerich, an acclaimed painter who was decorated with Padma Bhushan in 1961 and his wife Devika Rani, the grand niece of Rabindranath Tagore, a Padamshri and recipient of the first Dada Saheb Phalke Award.
Finding the law in accord with the dominant purpose being the preservation of trees, artifacts and paintings, the Bench said, “Any law which deprives a person of his private property for private interest, will be unlawful and unfair and undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial review…Public purpose is therefore, a condition precedent, for invoking Article 300A.” The court, however, restrained the Government from changing the land use. It said, “The land acquired be utilised only for the purpose for which it was acquired.”
Dealing with the issue of compensation, the Bench said, “The right to claim compensation or the obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300A, is inbuilt in that Article….A law seeking to acquire private property for public purpose cannot say that no compensation shall be paid.” To this extent, the Bench found fault with the decision of the Uttarakhand Government not to award compensation to persons who owned forest land in the State while forcibly acquiring huge tracts of their land by way of a 1977 Gazette notification passed under the Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1960.
The Bench further noted, “It is true that adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned in a court of law but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory.” The court further laid down, “Acquisition of property for a public purpose may meet with lot of contingencies, like deprivation of livelihood, leading to violation of Article 21, but that per se is not a ground to strike down a statute or its provisions.”
Dealing with separate matters from Karnataka and Uttarakhand, the five-judge Constitution Bench declared that acquisition can be for public purpose alone and must come with adequate compensation.
Since the right to property ceased to exist as a fundamental right after 1978 (through the 44th Constitutional Amendment), the only check that remained on the Government from acting arbitrarily by usurping private land was contained in Article 300A that vaguely placed the right as “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
After individuals in Karnataka and Uttarakhand challenged separate laws enacted by the respective State Governments claiming their right on land under Article 300A, it became essential for the Supreme Court to determine under what circumstances land can be acquired, and whether a bad acquisition can be challenged.
The five-judge Constitution Bench of Chief Justice SH Kapadia, Justices Mukundakam Sharma, KS Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar and Anil Dave examined the scope of this Article and said, “Deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 300A, generally speaking must take place for public purpose or public interest.”
Putting a strict check on the Government against using it for any other purpose, the Bench further observed, “The purpose must be primarily public and not primarily of private interest and merely incidentally beneficial to the public.”
With both public purpose and right to claim compensation made preconditions to acquire land, the Bench said, “The State has to justify both the grounds which may depend on scheme of the statute, legislative policy, object, and purpose of the legislature and other related factors.”
The court was dealing with a law passed by the Karnataka legislature titled “Roerich and Devika Rani Roerich Estate (Acquisition and Transfer) Act 1996” by which the Government acquired 470 acres containing valuable trees, paintings and artworks left by Russian artist Swetoslav Roerich, an acclaimed painter who was decorated with Padma Bhushan in 1961 and his wife Devika Rani, the grand niece of Rabindranath Tagore, a Padamshri and recipient of the first Dada Saheb Phalke Award.
Finding the law in accord with the dominant purpose being the preservation of trees, artifacts and paintings, the Bench said, “Any law which deprives a person of his private property for private interest, will be unlawful and unfair and undermines the rule of law and can be subjected to judicial review…Public purpose is therefore, a condition precedent, for invoking Article 300A.” The court, however, restrained the Government from changing the land use. It said, “The land acquired be utilised only for the purpose for which it was acquired.”
Dealing with the issue of compensation, the Bench said, “The right to claim compensation or the obligation to pay, though not expressly included in Article 300A, is inbuilt in that Article….A law seeking to acquire private property for public purpose cannot say that no compensation shall be paid.” To this extent, the Bench found fault with the decision of the Uttarakhand Government not to award compensation to persons who owned forest land in the State while forcibly acquiring huge tracts of their land by way of a 1977 Gazette notification passed under the Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1960.
The Bench further noted, “It is true that adequacy of compensation cannot be questioned in a court of law but at the same time the compensation cannot be illusory.” The court further laid down, “Acquisition of property for a public purpose may meet with lot of contingencies, like deprivation of livelihood, leading to violation of Article 21, but that per se is not a ground to strike down a statute or its provisions.”
No comments:
Post a Comment