Fundamental And Legal Rights

The right to private property in India has seen significant changes over the years. Initially, it was considered a fundamental right, but this changed after 1978. Let’s break down the journey of the right to private property in India in a simple way.

What Is The Right To Private Property?

The right to private property is a legal and moral entitlement that allows individuals to own, use, and control their property, whether it’s land, buildings, or other assets. 

It means people have exclusive control over their possessions and can use them as they wish. This right is important because it gives people the freedom to enjoy and manage their property without interference.

What Is The Article 300A Right To Property?

Before 1978, the right to private property was a fundamental right in India. This meant it was strongly protected by the Constitution, and individuals had strong legal grounds to resist any unfair action by the state that might take away their property.

Is right to property a fundamental right?

However, in 1978, the 44th Amendment to the Indian Constitution changed this. The right to private property was no longer considered a fundamental right. Instead, it became a constitutional right under Article 300A. 

This article states that no one can be deprived of their property except through the authority of law. Although it is not a fundamental right anymore, it is still protected and recognized by the Constitution.

Articles 31 And 31A Of The Constitution

Originally, Article 31 of the Constitution provided protection for the right to private property as a fundamental right. But this article faced criticism and was amended multiple times to address various issues. The 1st Constitution Amendment Act of 1951 added Articles 31A and 31B.

Article 31A was introduced to protect certain laws from being challenged on the grounds that they violated fundamental rights. These laws included those related to land acquisition and the management of property.

Article 31B had an even broader scope and protected laws listed in the Ninth Schedule from being challenged in court.However, the controversy around these laws led to the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, which removed Article 31 and changed how the right to property was treated in the Constitution.

Is Article 31 A Fundamental Right?

The 44th Amendment Act made significant changes. It removed the right to private property from the list of fundamental rights. Instead, it made the right to property a constitutional right under Article 300A. This change was made to address the need for land reforms and economic planning, which sometimes required the state to acquire land.

The Amendment also repealed Article 19(1)(f), which had guaranteed the right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. With these changes, the right to private property was no longer a fundamental right but was still protected under the Constitution.

What is the difference between Article 19 1 F and Article 31?

Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 are parts of the Indian Constitution that used to talk about property rights but changed over time. Article 19(1)(f) used to give people in India the right to own, keep, and sell property.

It was a key part of what was called Fundamental Rights, which are important rights guaranteed to everyone. But in 1978, this right was removed from the list of Fundamental Rights.

Article 31 was about protecting people from losing their property unfairly. It said that you couldn’t be forced to give up your property without proper legal procedures and compensation. Just like Article 19(1)(f), Article 31 was also changed in 1978. 

The right to property was no longer a Fundamental Right but was instead made a legal right under Article 300A. This means that while the government can still take property, it has to follow certain rules and cannot do it unfairly.

These changes were made to find a balance between people’s property rights and what the government can do, especially in cases related to land and other big public projects.

Supreme Court’s View on the Right to Private Property

The Supreme Court of India has played an essential role in interpreting the right to private property. For instance, in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Mrs. Bela Banerjee, the court decided that compensation for acquired property must be a "just equivalent" of what the owner has been deprived of.

In another significant case, Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to property is a human right.

The court ordered compensation for a woman whose land was taken without fair compensation for over 50 years. This ruling reinforced the idea that the state must follow due process and provide fair compensation when acquiring private property.

Doctrine of Adverse Possession

In India, there is a concept called "adverse possession." This means that if someone occupies property continuously and openly for a certain period, they might claim ownership of it.

According to the Limitation Act of 1963, this period is generally 12 years for private property. However, the state or government cannot claim ownership of private property through adverse possession.

Conclusion

The right to private property in India has evolved over time. Initially a fundamental right, it was reclassified as a constitutional right by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978. Despite this change, it remains an important legal right under Article 300A, ensuring that individuals cannot be deprived of their property without proper legal authority. 

The Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of fair compensation and due process in matters related to property rights. This evolution reflects the balancing act between individual rights and state needs, aiming for a fair and just system.