Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

51. It is submitted that the right to property of a citizen of India is a valuable Constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution though is not a fundamental right. Under Article 300A of the Constitution, no person can be deprived of property save and except expressly provided in the said Article.

52. Learned senior counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of the aforesaid contentions:

(a) F.B. Taraporawala & Ors. v. Bayer India Limited & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 58

93. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that respondent No.6 is not a 'Defence Establishment' also for the reason that no buffer zone was provided as was required under the provisions of draft DCPR 2034, then circulated.

94. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that right to property does not mean only a moveable property, which has bundle of rights. Even if a fraction of right is deprived, it violates the citizen's right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. By virtue of respondent No.2 not allowing full development potential to the petitioners' property, it amounted to deprivation of right to property, without authority of law. Article 300A of the Constitution is a Constitutional right and is now recognized as a human right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which is a part of the fundamental right.

121. In our view, the reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgments of the Supreme Court in case of F.B. Taraporawala and Ors. Vs. Bayer India Ltd. & Ors. (supra), in case of B.K. Ravichandra & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) and in case of Canara Bank Vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & Anr. (supra) in so far as the submission of the petitioners that the impugned notice violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India has no merit. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme wp113-19.doc Court in the above referred three judgments. However since there is no violation of the Article 300A of the Constitution of India, those judgments would not assist the case of the petitioners.

159. This Court has held that in almost all the decisions (supra) that the right to property may not be fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right and in view of the mandate of Article 300A, no person is to be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There is no dispute about the propositions of law laid down by the said judgment. However, in this case, the Central Government has not taken away the property rights of the petitioners. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts of this case.