Right To Property Remains A Valuable Constitutional Right, Reiterates Supreme Court

Though right to property is not a fundamental right, it remains a valuable constitutional right, the Supreme Court reiterated while directing the Centre hand back possession to the land to its owners.The phrasing of Article 300-A is determinative and its resemblance with Articles 21 and 265 cannot be overlooked- they in effect, are a guarantee of the supremacy of the rule of law, no less, the bench comprising of Justices Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat observed. In this case, though the High Court agreed with the contentions raised by the land owner with respect to the ownership and title of the suit lands, it rejected his claim to direct the Union Government to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of such lands. The Union Government possessed the land in question by requisitioning it under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable properties Act, 1952.Examining the facts of the case, the Apex Court, while considering the appeal, observed:"To sum up the facts, repeatedly the Union asserted that it had acquired at least some parts of the suit lands; these were examined by the High Court on two occasions, and in arbitration proceedings under the Requisitioning Act, on three occasions. Each time, the factual findings went against the Union. The Union's occupation ceased to be lawful, with the lapse of the Requisitioning Act, in 1987. Yet, it has implacably refused to hand back possession, each time asserting that it has some manner of rights over it. The High Court, while noticing that the Union's claim had no merits (in both its appeal, which was dismissed, as well as in the impugned judgment, disposing of the writ petition), nevertheless refused to issue any direction for the release of the suit lands. The rationale given was that the adjoining areas had been acquired and were used by the Union for defense purposes. What is more the impugned judgment granted indefinite time to the Union to take steps to acquire the suit lands. The Union has not chosen to do so these last 12 years. These facts paint a stark, even sordid picture."Referring to the judgments that emphasized the importance of right to property, the court observed: "Other judgments of this court have also highlighted the importance of the right under Article 300-A, in the context of regulatory laws and enactments, which do not directly result in expropriation or acquisition, but rather, in an oblique and indirect fashion, block the right to enjoyment of properties, underlining that the essential theme of Article 300-A is unauthorized deprivation, which would result in an indefinite suspension of the right to property. The court stressed that the law (of development or town planning, of any other such enactment) should be explicit about the nature and effect of the deprivation, expressing the intention to do so."The Court held that the High Court erred in committed an error in refusing relief to the land owners. 33 years (based upon cessation of the Union's legal possession) is a long enough time, even in India, to be kept away from one's property, the court said. The bench also observed thus: It is, therefore, no longer open to the state: in any of its forms (executive, state agencies, or legislature) to claim that the law – or the constitution can be ignored, or complied at its convenience. The decisions of this court, and the history of the right to property show that though its pre-eminence as a fundamental right has been undermined, nevertheless, the essence of the rule of law protects it. The evolving jurisprudence of this court also underlines that it is a valuable right ensuring guaranteed freedoms and economic liberty. The phrasing of Article 300-A is determinative and its resemblance with Articles 21 and 265 cannot be overlooked- they in effect, are a guarantee of the supremacy of the rule of law, no less. To permit the state: whether the Union or any state government to assert that it has an indefinite or overriding right to continue occupying one's property (bereft of lawful sanction)– whatever be the pretext, is no less than condoning lawlessness. The courts' role is to act as the guarantor and jealous protector of the people's liberties: be they assured through the freedoms, and the right to equality and religion or cultural rights under Part III, or the right against deprivation, in any form, through any process other than law. Any condonation by the court is a validation of such unlawful executive behavior which it then can justify its conduct on the anvil of some loftier purpose, at any future time- aptly described as a "loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."CASE: B. K. RAVICHANDRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1460/2010]CORAM: Justices Indira Banerjee and S. Ravindra Bhat COUNSEL: Sr. Adv Mohan Parasaran, ASG K.M. NatrajClick here to Read/Download JudgmentRead Judgment

Right To Property Remains A Valuable Constitutional Right, Reiterates Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

"To permit the state: whether the Union or any state government to assert that it has an indefinite or overriding right to continue occupying one’s property (bereft of lawful sanction)– whatever be the pretext, is no less than condoning lawlessness."

Tags