RANGARAO Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned writ petition is filed by the owners of the residential house property bearing Municipal Corporation No.151, CTS No.3746 and CTS No.3747 vide Annexure-C and C.1 situated at Sambhaji Road (Old Burudugalli), Belagavi City. The petitioners have knocked the doors of the writ Court apprehending demolition drive initiated by respondent No.2 - Corporation under the garb of widening of roads. Though respondent No.2-Corporation is served with notice, there is no contest.

(2.) As regards to Article 31(2) of the Constitution, it is said that it deals with the fundamental right regarding property which is expressed in the clause in negative language. The provisions of article 31(4) and 31-A and 31-B, though they deprive the expropriated proprietor of his rights provided under (Part-III) of the Constitution, however, they do not in any way affect the ambit of entry 36 and empower the State Legislature to make a law for compulsory acquisition of property without payment of compensation. In the true sense of the term, emphasis is laid on the words "subject to the provisions of entry 42" contained in entry 36 and it is contended that exercise of legislative power under entry 36 is conditional on exercise of power under entry 42, that one could not be exercised without the other, and the power, conferred by the two entries had to be construed on the assumption that the acquisition was to be paid for. The incident of the deprivation of property within the meaning of article 300 A of the Constitution, normally occurred, mostly in the context of public purpose. Clearly, any law, which deprive the person of his private property will be amenable to judicial review. In the last 60 years, though the concept of public purpose has been given quite a wide interpretation, nevertheless, the public purpose remains the most important condition in order to invoke article 300-A of the Constitution. The word property used in article 300-A must be understood in the context in which the sovereign power of eminent domain is exercised by the state and property expropriated. No abstract principles could be laid. The phrase deprivation of the property of a person must equally be considered in the fact situation of a case. Deprivation connotes different concepts. Article 300-A gets attracted to an acquisition or taking possession of private property by necessary applications for public purpose. It is inherent in every sovereign state, by exercising its power of eminent domain to expropriate private property without owners consent. The question then is whether the owner of the property is entitled to compensation that is just, equal and or indemnification to the owner of the property expropriated. It is common knowledge that when state exercises its executive power to acquire private property, it is under the land acquisition Act 1894 or similar state laws. Acquisition being for public purpose, payment of compensation at the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the official gazette, is the sine qua non.

(3.) In the light of the principles discussed supra, though a citizen has no fundamental right to resist utilization of private property by State or local body, however the right conferred on the State and Authorities to utilize private properties is always subject to process of acquisition. Though not a fundamental right, it is a statutory right conferred on owner of a private property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, respondent No.2 under the garb of road widening project, cannot demolish the existing residential houses owned by citizens. In the event respondent No.2-Corporation is of the view that it needs a private property, the same has to be done in the manner known to law and not by highhanded action. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case to issue appropriate directions to respondent No.2- Corporation. Accordingly, I pass the following: