Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 44th amendment in __________________________________________________________ vs Charan Dass on 1 March, 2025Matching Fragments
6. Before dealing with the contentions of Learned State Counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to have a recap of the mandate of law on the right to property of a person and its regime.
6(i). Based on the principle of eminent domain
- 10 - ( 2025:HHC:5826 )
at relevant time, Article 30(1-A) and provisos to Article 31-A (1) of the Constitution of India recognised the right to property and the right of a person to acquire, hold and dispose of property was conferred the status of a fundamental right. However, keeping in view the directive principles of state policy, the right of property which was a fundamental right, after the enactment of the 44th amendment in 1978, introducing Article 300-A in the Constitution of India mandating that "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law" was recognised as a "constitutional right".
of the power of eminent domain and, therefore, of entry 42, List III, as well and, hence, would apply when the validity of a statute is in question.
171. On the other hand, it was the contention of the State that since the Constitution consciously omitted Article 19 (1) (f), Articles 31(1) and 31(2), the intention of the Parliament was to do away the doctrine of eminent domain which highlights the principles of public purpose and compensation.
172. Seervai in his celebrated book 'Constitutional Law of India' (Edn. IV), spent a whole Chapter XIV on the 44th Amendment, while dealing with Article 300A. In paragraph 15.2 (pages 1157-1158) the author opined that confiscation of property of innocent people for the benefit of private persons is a kind of confiscation unknown to our law and whatever meaning the word "acquisition" may have does not cover "confiscation" for, to confiscate means "to appropriate to the public treasury (by way of penalty)". Consequently, the law taking private property for a public purpose without compensation would fall outside Entry 42 List III and cannot be supported by another Entry in List III.
Learned author opined that Article 300-A will require obviously, that the law must be a valid law and no law of acquisition or requisitioning can be valid unless the acquisition or requisition is for a public purpose, unless there is provision in law for paying compensation, will continue to have a meaning given to it, by Bela Banerjee's case (supra).
175. Learned author, Shri S.B. Sathe, in his article "Right to Property after the 44th Amendment" (AIR 1980 Journal 97), to some extent, endorsed the view of Prof. Tripathi and opined that the 44th amendment has increased the scope of judicial review in respect of right to property. Learned author has stated although Article 300A says that no one shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, there is no reason to expect that this provision would
179. Looking at the history of the various constitutional amendments, judicial pronouncements and the statement of objects and reasons contained in the 44th Amendment Bill which led to the 44th Amendment Act we have no doubt that the intention of the Parliament was to do away with the fundamental right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property. But the question is whether the principles of eminent domain are completely obliterated when a person is deprived of his property by the authority of law under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Public purpose