Land acquisition and property rights
Note
Infrastructure development needs pull against farmers' and tribal communities' property rights, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is where that tension is institutionalised. The 2013 Act replaced the colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and introduced a mandatory Social Impact Assessment, consent requirements for private projects, and compulsory Rehabilitation and Resettlement provisions. Article 300A of the Constitution protects property as a legal right; the 44th Amendment had earlier removed it from Part III, downgrading it from a fundamental right. Compensation entitlements and the state's power of compulsory acquisition are both governed within this dual framework of statute and constitutional provision.
In the news
Questions on this topic
Consider the following statements regarding the constitutional framework governing land acquisition and its impact on the remaining portion of a partly acquired property in India:
- Article 300A of the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right to property, enforceable through writ petitions against arbitrary deprivation, including cases where acquisition leaves the remaining property landlocked.
- The doctrine of 'injurious affection' or severance recognises that where partial acquisition of a property causes damage to the remaining portion — such as loss of access or frontage — the affected owner has a claim for compensation or remedy in respect of that residual land.
- A government body's administrative policy that permits discontinuation of access to a remaining property without notice and without compensation can be struck down under Article 14 of the Constitution if it is found to be arbitrary or unreasonable.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
Statement 1 is incorrect on a crucial doctrinal point: Article 300A, inserted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment in 1978, is a constitutional right to property (not a fundamental right). It was deliberately moved out of Part III — which houses fundamental rights — to a separate Article in Part XII. As a result, it cannot be enforced through a writ petition under Article 32 (which is available only for Part III fundamental rights), though it can still be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court. The significance of this distinction is that the right to property is no longer a fundamental right in India. Statement 2 is correct. The doctrine of severance and injurious affection — rooted in compensation law principles under land acquisition statutes including the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — recognises that partial acquisition can inflict harm on the remaining, unacquired portion of a property (for example, by leaving it landlocked or cutting off access). The affected owner is entitled to have this impact assessed and remedied. Statement 3 is correct. Under Article 14, executive policies and administrative rules are subject to judicial review for arbitrariness. A policy clause that allows a government agency to withdraw access to a residual property at will, without notice and without providing alternative access or compensation, can be struck down as arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional — this is the core of the Article 14 review power courts exercise over executive policy.
Your record on this topic
Sign in to see how many of these you have answered, which ones you got wrong, and to practise this topic on its own.
Sign in →