Right To Property Remains A Valuable Constitutional Right, Reiterates Supreme Court

Though right to property is not a fundamental right, it remains a valuable constitutional right, the Supreme Court reiterated while directing the Centre hand back possession to the land to its owners.The phrasing of Article 300-A is determinative and its resemblance with Articles 21 and 265 cannot be overlooked- they in effect, are a guarantee of the supremacy of the rule of law, no less,. Though right to property is not a fundamental right, it remains a valuable constitutional right, the Supreme Court reiterated while directing the Centre hand back possession to the land to its owners. In this case, though the High Court agreed with the contentions raised by the land owner with respect to the ownership and title of the suit lands, it rejected his claim to direct the Union Government to vacate their lands, leaving it open to the latter to initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of such lands. Referring to the judgments that emphasized the importance of right to property, the court observed: "Other judgments of this court have also highlighted the importance of the right under Article 300-A, in the context of regulatory laws and enactments, which do not directly result in expropriation or acquisition, but rather, in an oblique and indirect fashion, block the right to enjoyment of properties, underlining that the essential theme of Article 300-A is unauthorized deprivation, which would result in an indefinite suspension of the right to property.