The bench stated undue emphasis is laid on compensation to justify the facility of obligatory acquisition.
New Delhi:
Obligatory acquisition of personal properties can be unconstitutional if correct process isn’t established or adopted earlier than depriving an individual of their proper to property, the Supreme Courtroom stated on Thursday.
In a major verdict, the highest court docket stated even the statutory scheme of cost of compensation in return for acquisition of personal properties won’t be justified if the due process isn’t adopted by the state and its instrumentalities.
Whereas making the observations, a bench comprising justices PS Narasimha and Aravind Kumar dismissed the enchantment of the Kolkata Municipal Company.
The civic physique had approached the highest court docket difficult the judgment of a division bench of the Kolkata Excessive Courtroom which had quashed acquisition of a property at Narkeldanga North Highway within the metropolis for establishing a park.
The excessive court docket had held that the civic physique had no energy beneath a selected provision to go for obligatory acquisition.
“We’re of the thought of opinion that the Excessive Courtroom was totally justified in permitting the writ petition and rejecting the case of the appellant-Company buying land beneath Part 352 of the Act. The impugned judgment doesn’t brook interference on any rely,” the highest court docket stated in its 32-page judgment.
“Underneath our constitutional scheme, compliance with a good process of regulation earlier than depriving any individual of his immovable property is nicely entrenched,” Justice Narasimha stated.
“Once more, assuming that Part 363 of the Kolkata Municipal Company Act supplies for compensation, obligatory acquisition will nonetheless be unconstitutional if correct process isn’t established or adopted earlier than depriving an individual of their proper to property,” it stated.
It stated undue emphasis is laid on the provisions of compensation to justify the facility of obligatory acquisition, as if compensation by itself is the whole process for a legitimate acquisition.
“Whereas it’s true that after the forty fourth Constitutional Modification, the best to property drifted from Half III (basic rights) to Half XII of the Structure, there continues to be a potent security web in opposition to arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and unfair redressal mechanisms,” it stated.
The Article 300A (proper to property) of the Structure says that “no individual shall be disadvantaged of his property save by authority of regulation” and it has been characterised each as a constitutional and a human proper.
“To imagine that constitutional safety will get constricted to the mandate of a good compensation could be a disingenuous studying of the textual content and, let’s consider, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of the Structure,” it stated.
It stated there are seven sub-rights which will be recognized.
“These are: i) obligation of the State to tell the person who it intends to amass his property – the best to note, ii) the obligation of the State to listen to objections to the acquisition – the best to be heard, iii) the obligation of the State to tell the individual of its choice to amass – the best to a reasoned choice, iv) the obligation of the State to reveal that the acquisition is for public goal – the obligation to amass just for public goal,” the court docket stated.
“(v) the obligation of the State to restitute and rehabilitate – the best of restitution or honest compensation, vi) the obligation of the State to conduct the method of acquisition effectively and inside prescribed timelines of the proceedings – the best to an environment friendly and expeditious course of, and vii) ultimate conclusion of the proceedings resulting in vesting – the best of conclusion,” it added.
These seven rights are foundational elements of a regulation that’s in tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one in all these or a few of them would render the regulation prone to problem.
(Aside from the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV workers and is printed from a syndicated feed.)
