Right to Property under Article 300A

Article 300A provides that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law. It protects citizens and non-citizens against property deprivation based merely on executive action. The right to property is a constitutional right, but not a Fundamental Right.

Constitutional position

The Forty-fourth Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978 removed the right to property from Articles 19 and 31 and inserted Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution.

• Because it is not a Fundamental Right, deprivation of property cannot, by itself, support a petition under Article 32.
• The expression "no person" extends the protection beyond citizens, unlike rights expressly confined to citizens.

Constitutional limits on acquisition

Compulsory acquisition is lawful only when an enacted law authorises it. The State cannot take possession, demolish property or extinguish ownership solely through an executive order unsupported by authority of law.

• The authorising law must be within the legislature's competence and comply with other constitutional limitations, including protection against arbitrariness.
• In K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka, 2011, the Supreme Court recognised public purpose as an important condition governing compulsory deprivation.
• The State must follow the procedure prescribed by the acquisition law; legal authority alone does not excuse non-compliance with mandatory safeguards.

Procedure and compensation

Article 300A constrains both the basis and manner of acquisition. In Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024, the Supreme Court identified procedural safeguards within the right, including notice, hearing, a reasoned decision, public purpose, fair compensation, efficient acquisition and conclusion of proceedings.

• An affected person must receive a meaningful opportunity to contest the proposed deprivation where the governing law requires it.
• Article 300A does not guarantee full market-value compensation in every case or prescribe one compensation formula.
• Compensation provisions may nevertheless be reviewed where they are arbitrary or merely illusory.

Judicial protection and remedies

Courts may examine whether a valid law authorises deprivation, whether the measure serves a legitimate public purpose, whether prescribed procedures were followed and whether compensation meets the constitutional minimum.

• An aggrieved person may approach a High Court under Article 226 or use other remedies provided by law.
• Unauthorised dispossession by the State may justify restoration of property or compensation, depending on the circumstances and relief granted by the court.