Property rights are often compared to right to life, as they are essential for access to basic sustenance and the meaningful exercise of other rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Prior to the adoption of the Indian Constitution ‘property’ encompassed all types of interests a person could have, categorized into movable and immovable, corporeal and incorporeal, real and personal.  

After India’s independence, the political leadership recognised land reform essential for achieving economic equity, dismantling feudal systems, and asserting state authority over land distribution. The Indian Constitution of 1950 provided a progressive legal foundation for these reforms. Initially, property rights were included as fundamental rights in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31. Additionally, the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Articles 39(b) and (c), required the state to ensure equitable distribution of ownership and control of community resources to enhance the common good and prevent wealth and production concentration.

To achieve these objectives, the Indian government enacted a series of land reform laws intended to eliminate intermediaries (e.g., zamindars), establish land ceilings, regulate tenancy, and redistribute surplus land. Nonetheless, initial endeavours were regularly contested in courts on the basis that they infringed upon property rights. In response, Parliament enacted the First Amendment to the Constitution in 1951 to shield land reform laws from judicial scrutiny, incorporating Articles 31A, 31B, 31C, and Schedule IX into the Constitution, thereby safeguarding approximately 284 laws primarily associated with agrarian reforms and initiating a series of parliamentary amendments to circumvent legal hurdles. This amendment promoted national development through various mechanisms: it permitted the government to expropriate land from Zamindars for public welfare and agricultural purposes, thereby abolishing the Zamindari system; it granted the government authority over certain private enterprises to foster economic growth, although control was subsequently returned to the original proprietors; it transferred mining rights from mine lords to the government; and it placed additional resources, such as oil, under governmental jurisdiction.

In the context of land reforms in India, significant court rulings have shaped the constitutional framework. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sankari Prasad v Union of India (1951) reinforced reforms under Articles 31A and 31B. Subsequent rulings, such as West Bengal v Bella Banerjee (1954) , led to amendments that restricted judicial review concerning compensation adequacy, enhancing state authority. Seventeenth Amendment (1964) broadened Article 31-A and the Ninth Schedule’s scope, which was upheld in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965).  Amendments in 1971 and 1976 shifted the focus towards Directive Principles and emphasized social objectives in conjunction with Articles 14, 19, and 31. The 1973 Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case introduced the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, limiting parliamentary amendment powers. The Forty-fourth Amendment of 1978, which introduced Article 300A, was a significant milestone in the transition of property rights to constitutional rights, as amendments gradually diminished their status. This transition is indicative of a transition toward social equity in land acquisition, which prioritizes legal compliance while also allowing the state to adapt to public objectives.

 In the modern era, agrarian policy has increasingly centred on the acquisition of land for infrastructure and industrial initiatives. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, serves as a replacement for the colonial Land Acquisition Act of 1894, which was rooted in the concept of Eminent Domain. The RFCTLARRA of 2013 aims to create a more equitable and participatory framework for land transfers. Nevertheless, discussions continue regarding the equilibrium between development and the rights of small farmers, tribal communities, and forest dwellers.

Although land acquisition falls under concurrent jurisdiction as per the Constitution, the RFCTLARRA brings forth substantial reforms designed to promote equitable compensation and enhance transparency. It stipulates that compensation must be no less than four times the market price in rural regions and twice that amount in urban areas. Additionally, it necessitates the consent of 80% of impacted landowners for private initiatives and 70% for public-private partnerships. The Act incorporates measures for the rehabilitation of landless households and requires a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) to evaluate the public purpose involved. Furthermore, it imposes limitations on the acquisition of irrigated and multi-cropped land, capping it at a minimal percentage. 

The development of property rights in India illustrates a careful interplay between the authority of legislation and the safeguarding of individual rights by the judiciary, leading to a more just and effective system of land acquisition. In the post-liberalization era, the judiciary has confronted the complexities stemming from state-driven land acquisition for industrial and infrastructure advancement. In the case of K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011), the interpretation of Article 300A emphasized that the deprivation of property should serve a public purpose, adhere to legal authority, and ensure fair compensation is provided. The Court highlighted that while the right to property may not be considered fundamental anymore, it certainly holds significance and is not merely a facade. Additionally, In the case of Kalyani v. The Sulthan Bathery Municipality (2022), the Supreme Court highlighted that the failure to pay compensation, even when land is appropriated for public purposes such as road widening without legal authority or a written instrument, amounts to arbitrariness as defined under Article 300A.

The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in aligning constitutional principles, particularly due process, with state land distribution initiatives. Following the passage of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, recent developments in land acquisition law have underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the preservation of landowners’ rights. The importance of consent, social impact assessments, and equitable compensation is emphasized by the Supreme Court’s review of land acquisition actions, which emphasizes their alignment with constitutional principles such as equality and dignity.

This evolving legal framework aims to reconcile developmental needs with the rights of affected communities, promoting inclusive justice in land management.  The ongoing changes in land reforms in India are crucial for addressing significant challenges such as land fragmentation, outdated laws, digitization issues, acquisition bottlenecks, urban land shortages, and the marginalization of women and tribal communities. With 86% of farmers owning less than 2 hectares, land fragmentation hampers productivity and increases costs. The complexity of over 300 land laws leads to disputes and delays, while only 89% of rural land records are digitized, leaving many holdings without clear titles. Additionally, land acquisition protests hinder infrastructure development, and urbanization exacerbates housing shortages. Despite policy efforts, women’s land ownership remains low, and marginalized communities continue to face displacement. Overall, while progress is being made in safeguarding rights and promoting development, significant reforms are still needed to create a more equitable and efficient land governance system in India.

END OF ARTICLE