The recent Supreme Court ruling that not all private properties can be used by the state for the community or the common good has given property owners in Tamil Nadu some hope but also caused some confusion.
The verdict has detailed a few key determining factors the government needs to consider before seeking to acquire private property. This has brought considerable cheer to property owners in Tamil Nadu who are currently engaged in such disputes with the government.
For instance, farmers in Parandur who are protesting against the acquisition of their land for a new airport expect some relief from the latest ruling. However, the presence of some caveats (factors) could cause confusion. According to DMK MP P Wilson, the ruling is unlikely to affect already planned projects in Tamil Nadu.
Right to property vs public good
On November 5, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench passed a verdict saying not all private property can be considered ‘material resources of the community’ and acquired for the common good by the government. It cited Article 39(b) of the Constitution.
Experts say the ruling sheds light on how we view the right to own property and its relationship with society at large, as well as the terms of property acquisition by the government.
Like many other state governments, the Tamil Nadu government has, down the decades, acquired several acres of private land for various purposes like industrial estates, urban roads, and connectivity projects.
Also read: Eligibility criteria for govt jobs can’t be changed midway: SC
Many of these property acquisition moves have met with strong resistance, especially in the case of SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu) projects. But the protestors more often than not end up being booked under the Goondas Act.
Parandur airport project
Two years ago, the Union government announced Parandur as the location for a greenfield airport – a second airport for Chennai city. The Tamil Nadu government said over 5,000 acres of land from 20 villages, including Parandur and Eganapuram, would be acquired to construct the airport and complete the project by 2028.
Scores of villagers have been protesting against this project for over two years now. Protesting farmers say the latest apex court ruling may benefit them.
The Supreme Court has clarified and expanded on the term “material resources of the community”, Parandur farmer L Elango told The Federal. The SC bench has explained that the term cannot be broadly interpreted to include all privately owned properties just because they serve individual needs, he said.
Watch: One year of Parandur protests: Locals still say no to Chennai’s second airport plan
“This judgment gives us big hope. So far, we haven’t gone to court regarding the government’s land acquisition for the airport project. We have passed resolutions twice against land acquisition in Gram Sabha meetings. We also consulted legal experts and we are waiting for the environmental impact assessment report from the government. This judgment from the apex court will definitely help us. Currently, we are in the process of strengthening our arguments for our future meetings with authorities,” Elango added.
Four factors
The Federal spoke to P Wilson, DMK MP and former Additional Solicitor General of India, on the issue of land acquisition for public projects. Wilson explained that the nine-judge Supreme Court bench has introduced four factors that have to be met before the government can acquire private property for public good.
Also read: SC upholds states’ right to regulate industrial alcohol; says ‘Centre lacks regulatory power’
“The court says not all private properties can be considered as material resources of the community. But this is not a blanket rule that no private property can be taken by the government for public projects,” he pointed out.
The four factors, he said, are:
1) The nature of the resource and its inherent characteristics
2) The impact of the resource on the well-being of the community
3) The scarcity of the resource
4) The consequences of such a resource being concentrated in the hands of private owners.
Also read | Munambam Waqf land row: Background, legal and political angles, path forward
Earlier judgment overruled
“We have to understand that the nine-judge bench has overruled the judgment in the Sanjeev Coke case, where the court held that all private properties can be distributed by the state as ‘material resources of the community’ for the common good,” said Wilson.
“Now, the bench says private property can come under the scope of Article 39(b) if it meets the condition (factors) of being a material resource of the community. We have to check out the list of factors before acquisition. Projects like the Parandur airport, SIPCOT, and metro rail projects clearly will not violate these factors, considering the impact of the resource on the well-being of the community,” he added.
In his view, this ruling will not affect already planned projects in Tamil Nadu.
'A puzzle'
Justice D Hariparanthaman, former judge of the Madras High Court, felt the judgment is not clear. He described it as a “puzzle”.
The judgment, which runs into over 400 pages, could have been much simpler, clearly explaining the rights of private ownership of properties, he told The Federal.
Hariparanthaman further said the verdict was expected to clearly address whether the phrase “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) includes privately owned property. While a fine print of the judgement is awaited, the majority opinion has interpreted that not every property owned by an individual can be ‘material resource of community’, he said.
Also read | Explained: What is the row over transfer of salt pan land for Dharavi project?
Secondly, it was meant to clear the air on whether laws designed to fulfill this provision’s goal of redistributing material resources to “subserve the common good” are exempt from legal challenges based on fundamental rights violations, said the retired judge.
But the verdict has introduced a couple of factors to be assessed before the acquisition of private properties for public projects, he said, adding that the judges have given many references and added their comments related to a particular rigid economic dogma of the past.
‘No complete ban’
In his view, the verdict has not completely banned the government from taking over private property for public projects. It is wrong to assume that no private property can be acquired by the government, pointed out the former judge.
Also read | What Justices Nagarathna, Dhulia said about CJI’s remarks on Justice Krishna Iyer
“But, it actually only restricts the government from taking over properties from private owners. There are a couple of factors that determine whether they can take over a private property. Though the judgment runs over 400 pages, it is very exhaustive and does remain a puzzle for many,” he said.
Comments are closed.