Acquisition of pvt property not valid if proper procedure not followed, says Supreme Court

They are: “duty of the State to inform the person that it intends to acquire his property — right to notice, duty to hear the objections to acquisition — right to be heard, duty to inform the person of its decision to acquire — right to a reasoned decision, duty to demonstrate that the acquisition is for public purpose — acquisition only for public purpose, duty to restitute and rehabilitate — right to fair compensation, duty to conduct the process of acquisition efficiently and within prescribed timelines of the proceedings — right to an efficient conduct, and final conclusion of the proceedings leading to vesting – the right of conclusion”.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Narasimha said, “The seven steps may be procedures but they do constitute the real content of the right to property under Article 300A, non-compliance of these procedures will amount to violation of the right. An action of acquiring property without following due procedure would be outside the authority of law.”

The ruling said the requirement of a “law” does not end with the mere presence of a legislation which empowers the State to deprive a person of his property. “Rather, the nature, characteristics, provisions and procedure provided in such a legislation must necessarily be considered.”

It said “the State must mandatorily comply with the procedure which has been provided under the statute for an acquisition to be valid under Article 300A”. The court added that “the existence of and adherence to procedural safeguards is crucial for the protection of the right to property as they ensure fairness, transparency, natural justice and non-arbitrary exercise of power in the process of acquisition”.

In 2009, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation attempted to “forcefully enter and occupy” a property belonging to Birinchi Bihari Shah in Narkeldanga North Road, forcing him to approach the HC. The court disposed of the petition, directing the Corporation to hold an enquiry into the encroachments and to not do any construction over the property.

A year later, Shah again approached the HC after the Corporation deleted his name from the category of owner and inserted the name of the corporation in the official records.

In January 2015, a single-judge bench of the HC disposed of the plea, restraining the Corporation from interfering with the possession of Shah and also injuncting it from giving effect to the “wrongful recording of its name in the official records”. The Corporation was also directed to remove its men and material from the property within two weeks from the date of the order.