Important Judgements In News

Private Property is a Human Right: Supreme CourtPriority 1

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level : Right to Property

Mains level : Read the attached story


The right to property is a human right, the Supreme Court has recently ruled.

What did the court say?

  • A citizen’s right to own private property is a human right. The state cannot take possession of it without following due procedure and authority of law, the Supreme Court has held in a recent judgment.
  • The state cannot trespass into the private property of a citizen and then claim ownership of the land in the name of ‘adverse possession’.
  • Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher.
  • Article 300A required the state to follow due procedure and authority of law to deprive a person of his or her private property, the Supreme Court reminded the government.

Adverse possession

  • A welfare state cannot be permitted to take the plea of adverse possession, which allows a trespasser i.e. a person guilty of a tort, or even a crime, to gain legal title over such property for over 12 years.
  • The State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.

Back2Basics

Right to Property

  • The Constitution of India originally provided for the right to property under Articles 19 and 31.
  • Article 19 guaranteed to all citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
  • Article 31 provided that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” It also provided that compensation would be paid to a person whose property has been taken for public purposes.
  • The 44th Amendment of 1978 removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights.
  • A new provision, Article 300-A, was added to the constitution, which provided that “no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”.

What if one is deprived of his/her properties?

  • Thus, if a legislator makes a law depriving a person of his property, there would be no obligation on the part of the state to pay anything as compensation.
  • The aggrieved person shall have no right to move the court under Article 32.
  • Thus, the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, though it is still a constitutional right. If the government appears to have acted unfairly, the action can be challenged in a court of law by aggrieved citizens.

Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
Notify of