Right to Property: From Fundamental Right to Article 300A

The right to property is no longer a fundamental right in India, but it is still a constitutional right. The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 took it out of Part III and placed it in Article 300A, which says: "No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law." The Supreme Court now reads that short sentence as requiring a valid law, a fair procedure and, in practice, compensation.

This explainer is for B.A. LL.B. and LL.B. students preparing for constitutional law papers, and for citizens who want to know what protection they have when a government body wants their land. A farmer in Kanyakumari District facing an acquisition notice and a student in Nagercoil writing a Unit III answer need the same core understanding.

What did the original Constitution guarantee?

As adopted, the Constitution protected property in two places within Part III. Article 19 gave every citizen the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property. Article 31 said no one could be deprived of property except by authority of law, and required compensation where property was taken for a public purpose.

These guarantees soon collided with land reform. Parliament responded with the First Amendment in 1951, which added Articles 31A and 31B. Article 31B, read with the Ninth Schedule, protected listed laws from challenge on the ground that they violated fundamental rights.

How did the courts and Parliament fight over property?

The property debate shaped some of the most famous cases in Indian constitutional law. Keep this sequence in mind:

• I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967): the Court held that Parliament could not take away or abridge fundamental rights by amendment.
• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (decided 24 April 1973): a 13 judge bench, by 7 to 6, held that Parliament can amend fundamental rights, including property rights, but cannot alter the basic structure of the Constitution. The case arose from land reform laws in Kerala.
• Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980): the Court struck down the 42nd Amendment's attempt to give all Directive Principles priority over fundamental rights through Article 31C.
• The 2007 Ninth Schedule ruling: the Supreme Court held that laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 do not enjoy blanket immunity and can be tested against the basic structure.

What exactly did the 44th Amendment change?

The Forty-fourth Amendment omitted Article 31 and removed the property right from Article 19. It then inserted Article 300A in Chapter IV of Part XII. In the words of the Supreme Court in 2024, "the right to property drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution."

Two practical results follow. First, a person whose property is taken cannot go straight to the Supreme Court under Article 32, because that remedy is only for fundamental rights. Second, the text of Article 300A does not mention compensation. What remains is a right that binds the State: it can take property only under a law, never by executive action alone. Challenges usually come before a High Court under Article 226, which is how both the Kolkata and Tamil Nadu cases discussed below began.

How has the Supreme Court read Article 300A since then?

For years, students wrote that Article 300A was a "weak" right. Recent judgments make that answer incomplete.

• Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596: the right to take possession of private property must be exercised in the manner the Constitution directs.
• K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1: a law under Article 300A must follow the rule of law and be just, fair and reasonable.
• Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 (8 January 2020): the State took an elderly widow's land in 1967 to 1968 for a district road without any acquisition proceedings. The Court held that the right to property is a constitutional right and a human right, that "the State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over the land by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession," and that delay is no bar where the cause of action continues. It directed the State to pay compensation on the same terms as the reference court award in the related Anakh Singh case, with statutory benefits, and Rs. 1,00,000 as costs.
• Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 INSC 435 (16 May 2024): the Corporation claimed to have acquired land under Section 352 of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The Court held that the section gave no acquisition power and no procedure, and listed seven non-exhaustive sub-rights that form "the real content of the right to property under Article 300A".

The seven sub-rights from Bimal Kumar Shah are worth memorising:

1. The right to notice.
2. The right to be heard.
3. The right to a reasoned decision.
4. The duty to acquire only for a public purpose.
5. The right of restitution or fair compensation.
6. The right to an efficient and expeditious process.
7. The right of conclusion.

A related 2024 ruling is Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (5 November 2024), where a nine judge bench held that not every item of private property is a "material resource of the community" under Article 39(b).

Which law governs land acquisition today?

The main central law is the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013), in force from 1 January 2014. Sections to know:

• Section 4: preparation of a Social Impact Assessment study.
• Section 11: preliminary notification.
• Section 19: declaration of the land to be acquired.
• Section 26: market value, based on the stamp valuation, the average of the higher half of comparable sale deeds over the previous three years, or the consented amount, whichever is highest, then multiplied by a factor set in the First Schedule.
• Section 30: solatium of 100 per cent of the compensation, plus 12 per cent a year on the market value from the Section 4 notification until the award or possession, whichever is earlier.
• Section 64: reference to the Authority if the owner disputes the award.

What is the Tamil Nadu position?

Tamil Nadu also uses its own acquisition laws, such as the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial Purposes Act, 1997. The State inserted Section 105A and a Fifth Schedule into the 2013 Act to keep these laws outside it. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court struck that down in Caritas India v. Union of India, 2019 (4) CTC 737. Tamil Nadu then passed Act 38 of 2019, which revived the 1997 Act from 26 September 2013 but not its compensation provisions.

In Juby M. Mathew v. Principal Secretary to Government (Madras High Court, 20 September 2021), land taken for the Oragadam Industrial Park was the issue. The court set aside the award only as to market value and directed the Collector to pass a fresh award under Section 26 of the 2013 Act within twelve weeks. The State laws have been challenged further, so check the current status before relying on any single ruling.

How should you write this in an exam?

1. Open with the text of Article 300A and its source, the 44th Amendment, 1978.
2. Give the history in four lines: Articles 19 and 31, the First Amendment, Golaknath and Kesavananda.
3. Explain the shift: no Article 32 remedy, no express compensation clause, but still a constitutional right.
4. Show the revival through K.T. Plantation, Vidya Devi and the seven sub-rights in Bimal Kumar Shah.
5. Apply the 2013 Act (Sections 26 and 30) and, for a Tamil Nadu problem, mention the 1997 Act and Juby M. Mathew.
6. Conclude with your view on whether the right is now "fundamental in all but name".

Constitutional law runs through every year of our programmes, and this topic appears in both moot problems and university papers.

Sources

• Constitution of India: Article 300A: text of the article and note on its insertion by the 44th Amendment.
• Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024): full judgment listing the seven sub-rights.
• Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020): full judgment on human right, adverse possession and compensation.
• Section 26, RFCTLARR Act, 2013: how market value is determined.
• Section 30, RFCTLARR Act, 2013: solatium and interest.
• Juby M. Mathew v. Principal Secretary to Government (Madras High Court, 2021): Tamil Nadu industrial acquisition and compensation under the 2013 Act.