Latest news with #Article300A
Indian Express
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
How Maharashtra ‘Urban Naxal' Bill targets Property Rights
Written by Prashant Randive In the name of public order and national security, the line between legitimate state interest and authoritarian overreach is often blurred. The recently enacted Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill (MSPS), 2024, is a troubling example of this phenomenon. While the State justified the bill as a necessary response to threats posed by 'unlawful organisations', several provisions, particularly those that empower police to seal, seize or restrict the use of private property, pose a grave challenge to the constitutional right to property under Article 300A. Article 300A of the Constitution stipulates that 'No person shall be deprived of his property except by authority of law.' Though the framers left it to the legislature to define the contours of the lawful deprivation, Indian courts have consistently held that this power must be exercised fairly, non-arbitrarily and with due process. Yet, Sections 9 and 10 of the new law allow the police, with prior approval of the commissioner or District Magistrate, to prohibit the use of any premises allegedly linked to unlawful activity. The law authorises eviction, sealing, and restriction of use without prior judicial oversight, without compensation, and crucially, without providing the occupant or owner a chance to be heard beforehand. In the landmark judgement K T Plantation Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka (2011), the Supreme Court laid down the core principles that must guide deprivation of property by the state. Most notably, the Court held that there must be a legitimate public purpose. Secondly, there must be fairness and, in most cases, compensation. Finally, the law must be subject to judicial scrutiny for reasonableness, non-arbitrariness and proportionality. In the case of the MSPS 2024, all three constitutional safeguards appear to be compromised. First, it allows the state to seal or restrict the use of property merely based on the 'belief' of association with an unlawful organisation. This does not meet the constitutionality of the required threshold of a clearly defined public purpose. A blanket seizure of homes, businesses, or rented premises based on such vague suspicion, without establishing direct and deliberate involvement in unlawful activity, cannot be justified as serving a proportionate or legitimate public end. The concept of guilt by association dilutes the principle of individual responsibility and turns property holders into collateral damage in a scrutiny operation. Second, the law failed to provide for any form of compensation to those whose properties are sealed or rendered unusable, often with serious livelihood consequences. While Article 300A does not mandate compensation in every instance, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it is often an inherent component of lawful deprivation, especially when action causes material harm. In the absence of compensation and with no clear path to restitution, the law violates both the spirit and substance of the Constitution's property protections. Third, and most dangerously, the law bypasses the prior judicial oversight. The decision to seal, evict or restrict property use is taken by police with approval from the Commissioner or District Magistrate, but not a judicial authority. Review mechanisms are post-facto, limited, and internal to the executive. The Supreme Court in K T Plantation explicitly stated that such statutes must be amenable to judicial review, which implies that they must be designed in a way that embeds procedural fairness and provides a genuine avenue for redress, without preventive remedies or an impartial tribunal, affected citizens are left vulnerable to arbitrary state action. The failure of the Act to meet these constitutional benchmarks of public purpose, just procedure and proportionality renders its property-related provision deeply problematic. Far from being an exception in extraordinary circumstances, the law risks becoming a template for routine and unchecked executive overreach, with ordinary citizens paying the price through the loss of homes, shops and shelters. While countering extremist threats, a democratic state must not wield the weapon of national security in a manner that tramples civil liberties. Laws targeting unlawful associations must not become tools for harassment, chilling dissent, or arbitrary seizure of private spaces. Unfortunately, the MSPS 2024 resurrects colonial impulses of the idea that executive suspicion is sufficient to invade homes, shutter businesses, and override property rights. In doing so, it inverts the constitutional promise from the state that serves its people to one that surveils and punishes without accountability. If left unchecked, such laws may set a dangerous precedent across states, normalising a 'guilt by association' doctrine with wide-ranging implications not just for activists and dissenters but also for ordinary citizens whose homes, hostels, and businesses could fall victim to vague suspicions. The Right to Property may no longer be 'fundamental', but it is still the foundation to liberty, livelihood and dignity. Any law that seeks to erode it must be subjected to the highest standards of constitutional scrutiny. The act, in its current form, fails that test. The writer is an independent researcher and development practitioner working with Savitribai Phule Resource Centre
Time of India
08-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Karnataka high court quashes Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor land acquisition notifications & orders fresh award
Bengaluru: In a big relief for several landowners whose plots were acquired for the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor (BMIC) project, Karnataka high court has quashed the acquisition notifications issued between 1998 and 2009. Justice R Devdas passed this order, allowing the petitions filed by P Manjunatha Reddy and others, on the grounds that no award has been passed to date and no part of the petitioners' land was utilised by the respondents for the formation of expressway, interchanges, toll plaza, peripheral road, or link road. "More than 23 years have passed since the notifications for acquisition were issued during the years from 1998 to 2009, and awards have not been passed by the special land acquisition officer (SLAO). Having regard for the plight of landowners who are deprived of the use and occupation of agricultural lands and are losing their livelihoods, this court has no other option than to follow the judgment rendered by the division bench in the Shakunthalamma case," the judge observed. In said case, acquisition was quashed on the grounds that no award was passed even after the lapse of 11 years. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru In a related development, Justice Devdas directed the SLAO to pass a fresh award within three months by taking into account the market value prevailing on April 22, 2019, in respect of A Abdul Rehman Khan and other landowners. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo "The Supreme Court, in the Bernard Francis case, held that if compensation to be awarded at the market value of 2003 is permitted, it would amount to permitting a travesty of justice and making a mockery of the constitutional provisions under Article 300A," the judge further noted in his order. The state govt and Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board argued that the top court's order was confined to the petitioners therein. This contention wasn't accepted by the high court.
Time of India
03-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
SC stays contempt plea against Noida CEO in 2011 housing case
Noida: The Supreme Court has stayed contempt proceedings against Noida Authority CEO Lokesh M for alleged non-compliance with an Allahabad HC order over the sanction of building plans for developing a group housing society on a plot in Sector 45 in a decade-old case. The court has directed the CEO and the petitioners to explore an amicable solution. The contempt petition, filed against the CEO in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court in April, stated that despite a high court order, dated Nov 22, 2024, directing the Authority to reconsider the building plan application submitted by the petitioners under the Building Regulations, 2010, the map was rejected on technical grounds on Dec 24 that year. The case dates to 2011, when petitioner Kapil Misra and another person, received a plot at Sadarpur in Sector 45 through an exchange deed. According to the petitioners, the state govt initiated the process to acquire their 10,870 sqm plot at Rohillapur village in Sector 132 in 2006 for development. The acquisition process was quashed in 2009 after the two had challenged it in court. The petitioners had again approached the court as Noida Authority did not return their plot. Subsequently, Noida Authority allotted them a plot in Sadarpur in 2011 following the court's direction. In April 2021, the petitioners sought permission to develop group housing on the Sector 45 land. However, the Authority did not give approval. Misra filed a writ petition in 2022, and the Allahabad HC directed the Authority to decide on his application within 45 days. When this order was not followed, Misra filed a contempt petition. In response, the Authority rejected their application in Sept 2023, citing non-compliance with the Building Regulations that require a lease deed for such approvals. A revision petition filed with the state govt was dismissed last April. The petitioners maintained that an exchange deed constituted a valid transfer document under the law, granting them full property rights, including construction. They claimed the Authority's interpretation of the regulations was overly restrictive and violated their constitutional rights under Article 300A. In rejecting Kapil Misra's building plan application, the Noida Authority cited three main reasons. First, the land was originally acquired by Noida Authority and was allotted for specific purposes as per the lease deed; building plans could only be approved under the 2010 Building by-laws if all required documents were submitted. Second, building permission was granted only after a lease deed was executed, confirming the applicant is an authorised allottee. Third, Misra submitted a deed of exchange instead of a lease deed, which was not a valid document under the 2010 regulations, rendering his application incomplete and ineligible for approval. The high court found these reasons insufficient. On Nov 22, 2024, justice Alok Mathur of the Allahabad HC's Lucknow bench held that the exchange deed was a valid transfer under the Transfer of Property Act and the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. "We find no reason for the Authority not to consider the petitioners' application for building plan sanction. The reasons for rejection are clearly illegal and arbitrary," the court observed. It ordered the Authority to pass a fresh decision within four weeks of receiving the certified copy of the order. On Dec 24 last year, Noida Authority once again rejected the building plan application, citing technical grounds. This prompted Misra to file a contempt application against the CEO in April 2025. On May 28, the SC bench observed the matter warranted "an amicable resolution" and granted two months for discussions. The Supreme Court stayed further contempt proceedings and listed the matter for hearing on July 29.
