Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Article 300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law."

Two words, "person" and "property" in Article 300A are important. We may first consider the meaning of word "person". The expression "person" includes any entity, not necessarily a human being, to which rights or duties may be attributed. In ordinary, popular and natural sense word "person" means "a specific individual human being". But in law the word "person" has a slightly different connotation, and refers to any entity, which is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. Thus the word "person", in law, unless otherwise intended, refers not only to a natural person (male or female human being), but also any legal person i.e. an entity that is recognized by law as having or capable of having rights and duties. Ramanlal Bhailal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 449. The word "person" includes a corporation or a company as well as a natural person. Unless there is something to the contrary, it ought to be held to include both.

36.4 The expression "person" includes any entity, not necessarily a human being, to which rights or duties may be attributed. Under the Act, and Article 300A the expression "person" includes a company, an association of persons or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not and every artificial juridical person. Therefore, the Petitioners would be "person" covered under Article 300A of the Constitution. 36.5 The Apex Court had the occasion to consider as to what is accrued vested right in J. S. Yadav v. State of U.P and another (2011) 6 SCC 570 in paragraph 20 to 22 which is extracted as under:-

36.12 Copyright is a right to property and the same can be acquired only on payment of compensation. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. (2008) 13 SCC 30.

36.13 The right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India is not a fundamental right but it is a Constitutional right. The Legislature can deprive a person of his property only by authority of law. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in K. T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011) 9 SCC 1, has held in paragraph 168 that Article 300A proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a person cannot be deprived of his property merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without the support of law made by a competent legislature. The expression `Property' in Article 300A confined not to land alone, it includes intangibles like copyrights and other intellectual property and embraces every possible interest recognized by law.

36.15 Requirement of public purpose, for deprivation of a person of his property under Article 300A, is a pre-condition. The legislation providing for deprivation of property under Article 300A must be "just, fair and reasonable" as understood in terms of Articles 14 of the Constitution.

36.16 The Petitioners are carrying on business of mineral oil. When they entered in contract with the Government they were enjoying seven years tax holiday on multiple undertakings in the block. They were entitled to 100% exemption on their profits and gains under the Act. They acquired a vested right on their 100% exemption on their profits and gains which was the property of the Petitioners. By the Amendment in the Act they are being deprived of vested right of property by amending the Act retrospectively. In our opinion, the right given to the Petitioner for enjoying seven years tax holiday on each well/cluster of wells or on each undertaking in the block was an accrued and a vested right which could not have been taken away expressly or by necessary implication. In view of Section 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act, the accrued and vested right of the Petitioner should have been preserved and could not be destroyed by the impugned amendment by adding Explanation to Section 80-IB(9) with retrospective effect. We do not find any material on record which may demonstrate that the Parliament intended to destroy a right, privilege or benefit enjoyed by the Petitioner under the unamended Section 80-IB(9) of the Act, without authority of a valid law.