Passage
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 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’, the court said.
Grabbing private land and then claiming it as its own makes the state an encroacher. In a welfare state, right to property is a human right, a Bench of Justices Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi declared in their January 8 verdict.
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,” Justice Malhotra, who authored the judgment, laid down the law.
Yet, this is exactly what happened 52 years ago with Vidya Devi, a widow. The Himachal Pradesh government forcibly took over her four acres at Hamipur district to build a road in 1967.
Justice Malhotra highlights how the state took advantage of Ms. Devi’s illiteracy and failed to pay her a compensation for 52 years.
“The appellant [Ms. Devi] being an illiterate widow, coming from a rural background, was wholly unaware of her rights and entitlement in law, and did not file any proceedings for compensation of the land compulsorily taken over by the state,” Justice Malhotra empathised with Ms. Devi, who is 80 years old now.
Moves HC
Ms. Devi first learnt about her right for compensation in 2010 from her neighbours who had also lost their property to the road. Then, in her 70s, she did not lose time to march straight to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, accompanied by her daughter, to join her neighbours in their fight against the state. But the High Court asked her to file a civil suit in the lower court. Disappointed, Ms. Devi moved the Supreme Court.
Ordering the state to pay her ₹1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a fundamental right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.
Property ceased to be a fundamental right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, 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.
Ordering the state to pay her ₹1 crore in compensation, the Supreme Court noted that in 1967, when the government forcibly took over Ms. Devi’s land, ‘right to private property was still a fundamental right’ under Article 31 of the Constitution.
Property ceased to be a fundamental right with the 44th Constitution Amendment in 1978. Nevertheless, 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.
(Source-The Hindu by krishnadas ramagopal dated: 13th Jan 2020. Hon’ble SC stated to the government that “no citizen shall be deprived of the right to own his/her private property”)
Questions
Which article under Indian constitution binds the government/state to follow due process of law and authority?
- Article 32
- Article 226
- Article 108
- Article 300A
Ans- D
Rationale: Sometimes state seizes the property of people taking away their right to own private property. So Hon’ble SC under sec300A of Indian constitution has restricted the state to seize any citizens private property without due permission and procedure of law and authority since all the citizens of India have the right to own a private property which is their fundamental right.
Which of the following is a fundamental right according to the above passage?
- Right to own public property
- Right to own rented property
- Right to own private property
- None
Ans-C
Rationale: Under article 31 of the Indian constitution right to own private property is a fundamental right and there cannot be breach of right by the state claiming it to be their property in this case since this will make the state a encroacher.
Under which amendment was property ceased to be a fundamental right?
- 33rd amendment
- 44th amendment
- 104th amendment
- 1st amendment
Ans-B
Rationale: Property ceased to be a fundamental right under 44th amendment if Indian constitution to make sure that every person can get deprived of the property and the barrier between rich and poor lessens
The term “adverse possession” here means?
- Unauthorized possession
- Authorized possession
- Legal possession
- International possession
Ans-A
Rationale: Adverse possession here means that state without following the due procedure of law and authority possesses one’s property and claims its ownership over that property.
