RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER

INDIAN CONSTITUTION
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING
TO PROPERTY
• Section 299 of the Government of India Act, 1935, the precursor to the Constitution of India,
affirmed “right to property .” Every citizen was granted the individual right to acquire, to
hold and dispose of property.
• Following this, after Independence the Indian Constitution was adopted which contained
various provisions regarding property rights and they are listed below:
Provision Introduced by
Article 14 Original Provision
Original Provision on
Article 19(1)(f)
Right to Property
Original Provision on
Article 31
Right to Property
1st Amendment (1951).
Article 31-A Later, the 4th Amendment
substituted various clauses.
What is says Current Position
Equality before law and Equal
In effect
protection before law – mandates
Every person has a right to acquire,
hold, and dispose any property by Omitted by
lawful means, subject to reasonable 44th Amendment 1978
restrictions
No person shall be deprived of his/her
property, except by authority of law. Repealed by
Compensation would be paid to a 44th Amendment 1978
person whose property has been taken
for public purposes.
No law dealing with acquisition of
estate, or taking over management of
any property by State shall be void on In effect
grounds in violates Article 14 and/or
Article 19.
Provision Introduced by What is says Current Position

The Acts and Regulations specified in

the Ninth Schedule shall not be void, on
grounds in violates Fundamental rights,
Article 31-B 1st Amendment (1951) In effect
notwithstanding any judgment, decree
or order of any court or Tribunal to the
contrary.

SC struck down a portion of this clause

No law shall be void on grounds it takes in Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973)
Article 31-C 25th Amendment 1971 away rights conferred on Article 14 and “no law declaring it is to circumvent
Article 19. Art 14 ands 19 shall be called into
question by court”

State shall endeavour to ensure the

ownership and control of the material
Article 39(b) DPSP – original provision resources of the community are so In effect
distributed as best to subserve the
common good.

State shall endeavour to ensure the

operation of the economic system does
Article 39(c) DPSP – original provision not result in the concentration of wealth In effect
and means of production to the common
detriment.
Provision Introduced by What is says Current Position

The State shall endeavour to protect

Directive Principles of State Policy – and improve the environment and to
Article 48A In effect
Inserted by 42nd Amendment,1976. safeguard the forests and wild life of
the country.

44th Amendment (1978) -

No person shall be deprived of his/her
Article 300A Fundamental Right to Property In effect
property save by authority of law
becomes a Legal/Statutory Right.
• During the pendency of appeal in Kameshwar Singh v State of Bihar (1950) in SC, in which it
was held the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 invalid, the Parliament passed First Constitutional
Amendment (1951), inserting Article 31A and 31B to abolish zamindari holdings, and
facilitate agrarian reforms.
• Articles 31A said no law providing for acquisition by the state of an estate could be questioned
on the ground that it was took away or abridged any of the rights conferred by Articles 14, 19
or 31 (Fundamental rights).
• Article 31B declared that none of the Acts or regulations specified in the Ninth Schedule shall
be deemed to be void on the ground that they are inconsistent with Part III notwithstanding
any judgments, decree or order of any court or tribunal to the contrary. Originally 64 laws
were added to the Ninth Schedule and more were added through the 4 th, 17th and 29th
Amendments. Art 31B however does not empower the legislatures to amend these Acts
inconsistently with the provisions of the constitution, or to take away the rights conferred by
the Constitution.
• Subsequently, in State of West Bengal v Mrs Bella Banerjee (1954) the SC insisted on payment of
compensation for every case of compulsory deprivation of property by the state. The West Bengal Land
Development and Planning Act,1948, which provides for acquisition and development of land for public
purposes, and primarily to rehabilitate refugees from East Bengal, was declared unconstitutional.

• Owing to the decision of Bella Banerjee case, the Fourth Constitutional Amendment, 1955 sought to
restrict property rights. The amendment modified various provisions of Article 31 A and brought various
legislations under the Ninth Schedule, to give it immunity from judicial interference / review, as per
Article 31B.

• Later, the government brought in the Seventeenth Constitutional Amendment (1964), to extend the scope
of Article 31A and Ninth Schedule and to protect agrarian reforms enacted by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
The word “estate” in Article 31-A now included any jagir or inam, mauf, or any other grant and janmam
right in state of Kerala, Madras and also Ryotwari lands. It also protected a person of being deprived of
land less than the relevant land ceiling limits held by him for personal cultivation, except on payment of
full market value thereof by way of compensation.
• Later, the Twenty-fifth Constitutional Amendment, 1971 sought to overcome the restrictions
imposed on the government by the ruling in the R C Cooper v. Union Of India (Bank
nationalization case). The amendment:
• Replaced the word “compensation” to “amount” in Article 31(2) to overcome the court
verdicts related to “just compensation.”
• Introduced a new Article 31C. Article 31C expressly authorised outright confiscation of
any property, large or small, belonging to anyone, poor or rich, citizen or non-citizen.

• The Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) case challenged the constitutional validity
of the 25th Amendment or Article 31C. In accordance with the verdict of Kesavananda
Bharathi case, the 42nd Amendment replaced the term “Article 39(b)-(c)” from Article 31C
with “all Directives contained in Part IV of the Constitution.”
• The Fourty Fourth Constitutional Amendment transformed right to property from a
fundamental right into a constitutional (legal) right by deleting Article 19(1)(f), Article 31(1),
and Article 31(2). Instead a new provision, Article 300A, was added.
• Art 300A held “no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law.”
The amendment clarified the removal of property from the list of fundamental rights would
not affect the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their
choice and the right of persons holding land for personal cultivation to receive compensation
at the market value would not be affected.
• The object behind the amendment was to enforce socialism, or a shift the emphasis from
individual ownership of property to collective ownership of property.
• The major impact of the amendment is the property owners losing the right to file a writ in the
Supreme Court under Article 32 for infringement on property. They can only file a suit against
the Government.
THANK YOU