Supreme Court Illustrates Seven Sub-rights to Follow by the Government while Dealing with Land Acquisition

While hearing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors. case on May 16, 2024 (Thursday), the Supreme Court (SC) of India set aside the acquisition of land acquired by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. It illustrated seven sub-rights to be adhered to by the government while dealing with matters related to Article 300A of the Indian Constitution. The bench constituting Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the matter. According to Article 300A of the Constitution of India, “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” The bench while listing seven sub-rights said that “These sub-rights weave themselves into each other, and as a consequence, State action or the legislation that results in the deprivation of private property must be measured against this constitutional net as a whole, and not just one or many of its strands.” The sub-rights mentioned in the judgments are as follows:

• The Right to Notice: The duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property
• The Right to be Heard: The duty of the State to hear objections to the acquisition 
• The Right to a Reasoned Decision: The duty of the State to inform the person of its decision to acquire 
• The Duty to Acquire only for Public Purpose: The duty of the State to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose
• The Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation: The duty of the State to restitute and rehabilitate
• The Right to an Efficient and Expeditious Process: The duty of the State to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings 
• The Right of Conclusion: Final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting.

The SC bench said, “These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is in tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge.” It added that these seven sub-rights may be procedures, but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300A, non-compliance of these will amount to violation of the right, being without the authority of law. The bench also pointed out that the importance of these principles, independent of the statutory prescription have been recognized by the constitutional courts and they have become part of the administrative law jurisprudence. 

In context with the present case, the SC bench held that Section 352 does not provide for any procedure and rejected the contention that it contemplates the power of acquisition. It added, “As already held that Section 352 is only intended to enable the Municipal Commissioner to decide whether a land is to be acquired for public purpose.” Further, the SC said, “The power of acquisition is in fact vested with the State under Section 537 and it will exercise it, in its own discretion, whenever the Municipal Commissioner makes an application to that effect.” It agreed with the decision of the High Court that Section 363 is not a provision for compensation for compulsory acquisition. In this context, the bench also held that a valid power of acquisition coupled with the provision for fair compensation by itself would not complete and exhaust the power and process of acquisition. 

While reading the operative part of the judgment, the SC bench pronounced that “Prescription of the necessary procedures, before depriving a person of his property is an integral part of the ‘authority of law’, under Article 300A and, Section 352 of the Act contemplates no procedure whatsoever.” It added, that there was no doubt that the exercise of the power was illegal, illegitimate, and had caused great difficulty to the respondent (land-bearer). The bench added, “It is necessary to refer to the findings of the learned single Judge that the appellant-Corporation acted in blatant violation of statutory provisions.” Therefore, the SC opined that the High Court was fully justified in allowing the writ petition and rejecting the case of the appellant (Corporation) acquiring land under Section 352 of the Act.