The
Supreme Court said that the right to property is a part of human
rights and government cannot deprive a person of his land in an arbitary manner
A
bench of of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy, while hearing a case
related to the demand by a group of farmers in Rajasthan for fair compensation
for the land acquired from them by the government, said that the judicial
mandate of human rights dimension, thus, makes it incumbent on the state to
solemnly respond to its constitutional obligation to guarantee that a land
loser is adequately compensated.
"The
right to property having been elevated to the status of human rights, it is
inherent in every individual, and thus has to be venerably acknowledged and
can, by no means, be belittled or trivialized by adopting an unconcerned and
nonchalant disposition by anyone, far less the State, after compulsorily
acquiring his land by invoking an expropriatory legislative mechanism,"
the bench said.
"Though
earlier, human rights existed to the claim of individuals' right to health,
livelihood, shelter and employment etc, these have started gaining a
multifaceted approach, so much so that property rights have become integrated
within the definition of human rights," the bench said while referring to
its previous verdict, it said.
Right to
property is a constitutional right: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on
Monday said the right to property is a constitutional right and government
cannot deprive a person of his land in an arbitrary manner.
A bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said in a judgement that courts should view with "suspicion" the action of the government in acquiring land for private parties in the name of urgency.
"Court should not adopt a pedantic approach, as has been done in the present case, and decide the matter keeping in view the constitutional goals of social and economic justice and the fact that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, the same continues to be an important constitutional right and in terms of Article 300-A, no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law," Justice Singhvi, writing the judgment, said.
A bench of justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly said in a judgement that courts should view with "suspicion" the action of the government in acquiring land for private parties in the name of urgency.
"Court should not adopt a pedantic approach, as has been done in the present case, and decide the matter keeping in view the constitutional goals of social and economic justice and the fact that even though the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, the same continues to be an important constitutional right and in terms of Article 300-A, no person can be deprived of his property except by authority of law," Justice Singhvi, writing the judgment, said.
The apex court passed the judgment while quashing the
acquisition of 205 hectares of agricultural land in Uttar Pradesh's Gautam Budh
Nagar by the state on behalf of the Greater NOIDA Industrial Development
Authority for business entrepreneurs in March 2008.
The land owners Radhy Shyam and others had challenged the acquistion on the ground that the government invoked Section Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act empowering it to dispense with the process of inviting objections from the victims as mandated under Section 5A of the legislation.
The high court had dismissed the land owners' plea, after which they appealed in the apex court.
Upholding the landowners plea, the apex court said if land is acquired for the benefit of private persons, the court should view the invoking of Section 17(1) and/or 17(4) with suspicion and carefully scrutinize the relevant record before adjudicating upon the legality of such acquisition.
The land owners Radhy Shyam and others had challenged the acquistion on the ground that the government invoked Section Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act empowering it to dispense with the process of inviting objections from the victims as mandated under Section 5A of the legislation.
The high court had dismissed the land owners' plea, after which they appealed in the apex court.
Upholding the landowners plea, the apex court said if land is acquired for the benefit of private persons, the court should view the invoking of Section 17(1) and/or 17(4) with suspicion and carefully scrutinize the relevant record before adjudicating upon the legality of such acquisition.
No comments:
Post a Comment