Acquisition of private property by state not valid if proper procedure not followed: Supreme Court

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, May 17

Emphasising the need for a fair procedure for acquisition of private property, the Supreme Court on Thursday said mere presence of a law authorising the state instrumentalities to acquire land or any other private property was not sufficient in the absence of procedural safeguards.

“Existence and adherence to procedural safeguards is crucial for the protection of the right to property as they ensure fairness, transparency, natural justice and non-arbitrary exercise of power in the process of acquisition,” a Bench led by Justice PS Narasimha said.

The Bench said the owner has the right to be heard after being given a notice. There is a duty cast on the state to acquire land only for ‘public purpose’ and the land owner has the right of restitution or fair compensation.

“It is necessary for the administration to be efficient in concluding the process and within a reasonable time. This obligation must necessarily form part of Article 300A,” the top court said. The acquisition process has to be expeditious and the acquisition order has to be “reasoned”, it said, dismissing the Kolkata Municipal Corporation’s petition in a land acquisition case.

Interpreting Article 300A, the top court said it has seven sub-rights which it termed as foundational components of a law, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge.

These included the state’s duty to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property, ie, the right to notice; the state’s duty to hear objections to the acquisition, ie, the right to be heard; the state’s duty to inform the person of its decision to acquire, ie, the right to a reasoned decision; the state’s duty to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose; and the state’s duty to acquire only for public purpose.

The seven sub-rights further included the state’s duty to rehabilitate the affected person/s, ie, the right of restitution or fair compensation; the state’s duty to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings, ie, the right to an efficient and expeditious process; and the state’s duty to final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting, ie, the right of conclusion, it said.