Constitutional Right To 'Property' Must Be Understood In Context Of State's 'Eminent Domain': Calcutta High Court
Live LawThe Calcutta High Court has held that the right of eminent domain exercised by a state for the larger public interest would prevail over the constitutional right to property of private landowners under Article 300A of the Constitution.While allowing the authorities to acquire the petitioner's premises for metro railway construction, Justice Aniruddha Roy held:The right guaranteed under. The Calcutta High Court has held that the right of eminent domain exercised by a state for the larger public interest would prevail over the constitutional right to property of private landowners under Article 300A of the Constitution. While allowing the authorities to acquire the petitioner's premises for metro railway construction, Justice Aniruddha Roy held: The right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution shall have to be read by including the provisions laid down under Article 31A of the Constitution of India and not in exclusion thereof. Since, only on the basis of the negotiation held with the Ministry of External Affairs, land from the said property will be made over to them in exchange for utilized land, the Consul General had agreed to only allow the Metro Railway to utilize their portion of land to maintain the track alignment of the metro railway, there was no other option or alternative left open to the Central Government and metro railway but to accept the said negotiation.