ISSN 2455-4782

DOCTRINE OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN INDIA AND ITS PARAMETERS

Authored by: Avi khetarpal* & Krittika Sharma**

* 4th year BBA LLB student, Amity Law School

** 4th year BBA LLB student, Amity Law School

ABSTRACT

Land being the most significant, is also the most anxious law in India. The primary proprietor of
land is the king or in contemporary senses the chosen Government in power. As such the right of
proprietorship will always continue with the king or the elected government, notwithstanding the
detail that land is transported to separate citizens for agricultural or other drives by the king or the
government as the case may be, land acquisition in India denotes to the process by which the union
or a state government in India obtains private land for the drive of industrialization, development
of infrastructural amenities or urbanization of the secluded land, and provides recompense to the
affected land owners and their reintegration and relocation.]Land laws in India pressure on various
significant ideas among which the concept of eminent domain is measured to be an important one.

Key-words: Eminent Domain, Land Law, India, Acquisition, Infrastructure

1|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

MEANING OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Eminent domain is a legal strategy that enables a federal or local government to seize private
property for public use. The seizing expert must pay honest incentive for the property seized.
Doctrine of Eminent Domain, in its general implication implies the incomparable intensity of the
king or the government under which property of any individual can be assumed control in light of
a legitimate concern for overall population. Be that as it may, throughout the years such assuming
control over the property by the ruler or the administration has been made conceivable simply in
the wake of remunerating the land proprietor of such property. In this manner eminent domain
clarified as the intensity of the lord or the legislature to assume control over the property of a
private individual when it is required for public purpose. Principle of 'eminent domain' depends on
two maxims namely salus populi incomparable lex esto which implies that the welfare of the
general population is the central law and necessita open significant est quan, which implies that
public necessity is greater than private necessity. Eminent Domain is intensity of the sovereign to
secure property of a person for public use without the need of his assent. This power depends on
sway of the State. Installment of only pay to the proprietor of the land which is gained is a piece
of activity of this power. Eminent Domain power is viewed as a characteristic intensity of the State
to take private property for public purpose. This power relies upon the better space of the State
over all the property inside its limits. A coincidental constraint of this power is that the property
will not be taken without just remuneration. The articulation "eminent domain" implies changeless
(prominent) territory (area) of the state on the property. The intensity of the State to take private
property for public purpose and subsequent right of the proprietor to repay presently rise up out of
the constitution of India. In passage 42 list III of seventh timetable under Indian Constitution, both
Union and States government are engaged to sanction laws identifying with obtaining of property.
The utilization of eminent domain control for land acquisition is additionally defended when
people in general reason being referred to can be served by just a particular real estate parcel,
which has no substitute.

2|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

WHY IT MATTERS

Doctrine of eminent domain is a questionable subject. In spite of the fact that taking property might
be essential for the general population great (especially on account of wellbeing and security), it
is some of the time hard to persuasively isolate a man from his or her property. Also, there is
extensive inquiry in regards to in the case of executing extra overwhelming controls on a specific
property is successfully the same as grabbing the property since it altogether diminishes the
proprietor's "utilization and delight" of the property, and subsequently qualifies the proprietor for
just pay. Last, there is impressive discussion about what establishes legitimate public purpose. For
example, a few courts have enabled urban communities to clear terrible looking neighborhood’s
basically to embellish the town. Others have enabled governments to seize property and offer it to
organizations that assemble production lines or other employment making offices on the
property1.Eminent domain is a privilege allowed under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Comparative forces are found in most precedent-based law countries.

It is classified "necessary buy" in the U.K., New Zealand and Ireland, "confiscation" in Canada
and "obligatory procurement" in Australia. Private property is taken through judgment procedures,
in which proprietors can challenge the legitimateness of the seizure and settle the matter of
equitable esteem utilized for pay. The clearest models of judgment include land and structures
seized with a specific end goal to clear a path for an open undertaking. Eminent domain can
incorporate leases, stocks and venture reserves. In 2013, regions started to consider utilizing
prominent area laws as an approach to renegotiate submerged home loan by seizing them from
financial specialists at their present market esteem and exchanging them at more sensible rates.
Congress passed a law restricting the Federal Housing Administration from back home loans
seized by eminent domain, in 2016. In any case, it is as yet a live issue that could undermine the
home loan showcase. Since contract rights, licenses, copyrights and licensed innovation are for the
most part subject to eminent domain, the Federal government could, hypothetically, utilize eminent
domain to seize Facebook and transform it into an open utility, to secure individuals' protection
and information

1
Available at www.lawfirms.com/resources/real-estate/eminent-domain/facts-about-eminent-domain.htm (last
accessed on 26/12/2018)
3|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSES

The meaning of what comprises an open venture has been extended by the Supreme Court, from
highways, trade centers, airport expansions and other utilities, to anything that makes a city all the
more outwardly alluring or revives a network. Under this meaning of public use, eminent domain
started to incorporate the interests of enormous business. General Motors took private land for a
manufacturing plant in the 1980s since it would make occupations and lift charge incomes. Seizing
land for private utilize has prompted genuine maltreatment. Most famously, Pfizer grabbed the
homes of a poor neighborhood in New London, Connecticut in 2000 to manufacture an exploration
office. Americans were insulted to take in a city that sentenced homes and independent companies
to advance private improvement. While the Supreme Court maintained this decision in 2005,
various states passed new laws to shield property proprietors from oppressive prominent space
takings. Long after the homes were bulldozed, Pfizer deserted its designs, abandoning a no man's
land.

INVERSE CONDEMNATION

There is likewise legitimate discussion about whether burdensome directions comprise a taking.
Private property proprietors have sued the administration in procedures called inverse
condemnation, where the legislature or private business has taken or harmed property yet neglected
to pay remuneration. This has been utilized to acquire harms for contamination and other
ecological issues.

ELEMENTS OF EMINENT DOMAIN

Eminent Domain or expropriation is the inherent right of the state to condemn private property to
public use upon payment of just compensation. A number of circumstances must be present in the
taking of property for purposes of eminent domain2:

2
Available at https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/2/166.pdf (last accessed on 27/12/2018)
4|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

1. The expropriator must enter a private property

2. The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period
3. The entry into the property should be under warrant or Colour of legal authority
4. The property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected
5. The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property

FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE

OF PROPERTY ARE:

(1) Market demand;

(2) Proximity to areas already developed in a compatible manner with the intended use;

(3) Economic development in the area;

(4) Specific plans of businesses and individuals;

(5) Actions already taken to develop land for that use;

(6) Scarcity of land available for that use;

(7) Negotiations with buyers interested in property taken for the particular use;

(8) Absence of offers to buy property made by buyers who have put it to the use urged; and

(9) The use to which the property is being put at the time of the taking

WHAT ARE PROS OF EMINENT DOMAIN

1. The public benefits: A legislature can utilize eminent domain to grab a bit of property to make
new streets or an interstate. Not exclusively could this abbreviate travel times or diminish
movement, however it could make new wellsprings of income from delivery and trucking also.

5|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

Building a healing center where none exists or other required open administrations can likewise
profit by the utilization of eminent domain.

2. It prevents the ability of a few or one to blackmail a government into paying more: Citizens
are at last the individuals who are subsidizing the buys made through eminent domain claim. By
having eminent domain set up, the likelihood of proprietors requesting expansive aggregates of
cash are expelled from the condition.3 This likewise abbreviates the time expected to anchor the
property in light of the fact that the proprietors included know they will get reasonable pay.

3. It helps everyone save money: Eventually everybody sets aside some cash when eminent
domain is established. This is on account of the expenses for property that are reasonable, the
overall population sets aside extra cash or gets new administrations, and the property proprietors
get a honest value that they didn't need to invest months arranging. Despite the fact that there are
progressing access issues or changes in how a property works that must be overseen, by and large
the money saving advantages are more prominent with eminent domain than without it.

4. Property proprietors can fight for what they feel is a reasonable cost: There are times when
property proprietors feel like, the "fair remuneration" offer they get for their property is too low.
In this case, rather than being compelled to acknowledge the value they are given, an eminent
domain lawyer can be contracted to show signs of improvement cost. Should the property
proprietor be effective for their situation, there is even a shot that the court may grant instalment
of their legitimate charges in with the judgment.

WHAT ARE THE CONS OF EMINENT DOMAIN?

1. It is a framework that is effortlessly manhandled: There are numerous accounts of

entrepreneurs attempting to create properties, however running into solitary dissidents who decline
to offer. These proprietors will appeal to governments for an eminent domain filing with the goal
that the honest esteem will be paid to the solitary protester and have they constrained out. At that
point the property gets created and sold at a significantly higher cost. Is that for the true public
good?

3
Available at https://eminentdomainhelp.com/pros-and-cons/ (last accessed on 27/12/2018)
6|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

2. Reasonable pay isn't in every case reasonable: Suppose an agriculturist gets an eminent domain
claim for another stretch of roadway that will slice through his property. Not exclusively does this
agriculturist lose the potential continuous estimation of the products that can be developed,
however now he/she needs to cross a bustling interstate or have an underpass or bridge introduced
to achieve his fields on the opposite side. The rancher gets honest incentive for the farmland,
however no pay is required for the absence of access or the loss of yield incomes later on.

3. It makes the establishment for mass expulsions: Are redevelopment ventures financed by the
administration for greater public good? In San Francisco, 4,000 individuals living beneath the
destitution level were migrated to new neighborhoods with the goal that lodgings and business
segments could be created. It is anything but difficult to perceive how eminent domain can be seen
now and again as an out of line rehearse that objectives poor people, certain minorities, and other
particular socioeconomics.

4. Each state as various ways that the law works: There are numerous families which possess
property in various states in the US. Each state has distinctive laws about how eminent domain
functions. This can make perplexity since a few states allow rights that others don't. Without an
unmistakable learning of nearby laws that are once in a while hard to find, property proprietors
can be at a characteristic burden amid a case.

The upsides and downsides of eminent domain demonstrate that generally, a more prominent great
can be accomplished. Similarly as with any advancement opportunity, there will be the individuals
who let covetousness conquer sensibility. On the off chance that the detriments are painstakingly
assessed, at that point the advantages to more prominent benefit can turn into the focal point of a
future task.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANIFESTATION OF EMINENT DOMAIN

The Constitution in its unique un-altered frame ensured the privilege to property as a principal
right. Article 19(l) (f) existed in the Constitution of India which gave a small portion of assurance
to private property. Article 31 makes the property right more grounded by setting established
limitation against State i.e., State will not deny the property right of individual except if spared by

7|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

power of law. These Articles were cancelled by the forty fourth sacred revision and Article 300A
embedded. This move has, as it were, weakened the Constitutional insurance to the organization
of private property in India. One of the purpose behind erasure of Articles 19(l)(f) and 31 is to
lessen the property appropriate from the status of central right make it as a lawful right, i.e., the
correct will be accessible against the official impedance however governing body has the ability
to make laws meddling with the person's property right. Supreme Court has obviously expressed
that the official expert can't deny a man of his property without the specialist of law and law in this
setting signifies "an Act of Parliament or of a State law making body, a control, or a statutory
request, having power of law, that is certain or State made law". Both under the Articles 31A and
31(2) of Indian Constitution the Government can practice the intensity of prominent area for
gaining the home and land for regular great. System of the Article 31A is that state obtained
bequest for agrarian change through enactments couldn't be tested on the ground of infringement
of Articles 14, 19, 31 to that degree those enactments are resistant from legal audit. Be that as it
may, not insusceptible from legal system if laws are oppressive in instalment of pay and on the off
chance that they are past the competency of the assembly. The goal of the law is to appoint grounds
to the landless poor or penniless people out of the land accessible for transfer in the hands of State.
This law likewise went for nullifying every one of the sorts of intermediates to set up libertarian
culture. The recent of Zamindars, Jaghirdars, Inamdar’s, Deshmukh’s, and so forth are prominently
known as intermediates, they were not developing grounds personally. Prominent area control
practiced by the Government under Article 31(2) for procuring property for public purpose can be
addressed on the ground of (I) Malafide exercise of intensity (ii) obtaining of land is clearly for
public purpose yet as a general rule for a private reason or insurance reason (iii) a procurement
without following the method under the Act, (iv) when the securing is absurd or nonsensical (v)
when obtaining isn't for an public purpose at all and the misrepresentation on the resolution is
obvious.4

4
Available at
https://www.academia.edu/11474674/Limits_to_Absolute_Power_Eminent_Domain_and_the_Right_to_Land_in_In
dia (last accessed on 27/12/2018)
8|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE

Land acquisition for the special economic zones (SEZs) has conveyed to constrain the obtaining
of residents rights over land versus the administrations capacity to get it for improvement (eminent
domain control). Land for SEZ has been an antagonistic issue in many states, it might be said, a
subset of bigger clash over land for industry. Since India is a popularity based nation, securing
land for foundation ventures and mechanical improvement has frequently been hazardous on the
grounds that a typical observation is that SEZs ventures are minor land snatching exercise with
land being procured at unjustifiably low expenses. SEZs are proposed to be solid magnets for
outside ventures, create millions of occupations, create human capital assets and have reactant
impact on the nation's enterprising endeavors. Land for SEZ has been gained utilizing the Land
Acquisition Act 1894. This law allows the administration (Central or State) to get arrive for a
'public purpose' or an 'organization'. Throughout the years State have likewise utilized the
arrangement of the LAA to gain arrive for modern domains, mechanical townships and even single
organization ventures. SEZs and Land Acquisition are interconnected for in the setting up of SEZ
colossal measures of land are required. The Government of India is empowering the setting up of
SEZs in the nation to help in the financial and modern development of the country.

The Land Acquisition Act 1894 gives upon the Central and State governments capacity to acquire
land (since this Act finds a place in the simultaneous rundown of the Constitution) for public
purpose and for organizations. In this way question normally emerges with respect to for what
reason was a need felt for a different indicated enactment on SEZs when the land for the same
could have been obtained under the Land Acquisition Act.5 Idea driving area obtaining for SEZ
has risen up out of Land Acquisition Act is obvious from the comparative method took after under
both the Acts in the meantime SEZ fuses certain distinctive highlights. Under the land Acquisition
Act, 1894 proper government can procure arrive just for public purpose or with the end goal of an
organization under the SEZ Act, the main reason for which land can be obtained is for the
foundation improvement and administration of SEZs. Land procured for SEZ primarily in view of
five reasons (1) age of extra financial action, (2) advancement of fare of merchandise and ventures,
(3) advancement of speculation from local and remote sources, (4) making of work openings and

5
Anjali Mody, ‘Special Economic Zones: A briefing note’, (Unpublished manuscript filed with on, author) 86
Walter
9|Page JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

(5) improvement of foundation offices. Be that as it may, the fundamental protest appears to have
been built up to have a nexus with 'the general population reason'. Under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 a similar strategy have been taken after for procurement of land for 'public purpose' and
for 'organizations' accommodated organizations, past assent of the fitting government must be
acquired. When arrive procured under the Land Acquisition Act, it turns into the property of the
administration and the legislature can utilize it in any way as it loves for a few reasons, the
administration can in any case utilize it for an alternate reason out and out in so far as there is no
malafide goal on its part. However, arrive advised for SEZ can't be utilized for some other reason.
Furthermore, however there are particular arrangements under the Land Acquisition Act for
remuneration to the intrigued people, yet under SEZ by and large pay decided based on the strategy
of the administration.

There is no authoritative arrangement for recovery and resettlement of dislodged people both under
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and SEZ Act, 2005. The administration guarantees 'sympathetic'
removal taken after by help and recovery. Anyway record does not offer any space for trust on this
check, an expected 40 million individuals (of which about 40% are Adivasis and 25% are Dalits)
has lost their territory since 1950 by virtue of relocation because of substantial improvement
ventures. No less than 75% of despite everything they anticipate for recovery. This is one of the
real motivation to nullify the pioneer Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The present government
overdriven on SEZs has featured the subject of where the line is to be drawn between open great
and private benefit. While in the rule the law permits focal and State governments, and also private
engineers to set up SEZs, by and by, it is the last gathering that is really engaged with the greater
part of them. This implies land organizations who have no fact record in assembling or fares have
moved toward becoming SEZ promoters’ medium-term.

INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD PUBLIC PURPOSE

Article 31(2) completely expresses that a land can be gained by the state just for public purpose.
Comprehensively, public purpose would incorporate a reason, in which the general enthusiasm of
the network, rather than a specific enthusiasm of the individual, is for the most part and

10 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

fundamentally concerned6. In a generic sense the articulation public purpose would incorporate a
reason in which where even a small amount of the network would determine advantage or be
profited. Anything which is helpful to people in general as in it gives some open advantages or
conduces to some open preferred standpoint is a public purpose. With the walk of civilization, the
thoughts with regards to the extent of the general enthusiasm of network changes and broadens
with result that old and smaller ideas as to holiness of private intrigue or individual intrigue never
again steam the forward streaming tide of time and offer approach to more extensive ideas of
general enthusiasm of the network. It is the prerequisite of public purpose and it is deciding
variable on question of regardless of whether a specific land ought to be obtained and the
contemplations of hardships to the people can't exceed the subject of open interest. Segment 3(f)
of the Land Acquisition Act characterizes "public purpose" as the articulation was not entirely
translated and it is a comprehensive definition hence, every now and then the Courts have held
diverse purposes to be public purpose. It isn't conceivable to give a correct and sweeping meaning
of public purpose. The law of Land Acquisition endangers the private enthusiasm for public
purpose. Thus, it denies an individual appropriate right to property.

It abrogates the privilege of a man to possess a property, so the law when all is said in done ought
to be entirely interpreted. The strict development of the law of Land Acquisition has been
underlined by the Court throughout the previous 64 years as it didn't hold the individual whose
property has been taken. The proprietor of the property has no haggling power with the state in
such conditions nor does he has say in pay; so it is inescapable in light of a legitimate concern for
value that the law ought to be entirely enhance to accommodate different balanced governance.
Obligatory obtaining will be successful just an accommodating, participative, educated and
straightforward process took after. Consequently, Acquisition Act, 1894 is an advance into
nationals' entitlement to property. On this issue the built up law is that if for the reason for which
the right is obtained, it is evident on the substance of procurement, it's anything but for a public
purpose and there can be no two contentions to translate it generally, implies the demonstration of
the administration is ultra vires. Henceforth, public purpose for existing is legitimate, Courts can
investigate the issue. The Recognized legitimate meaning of public purpose has offered ascend to

6
Available at http://blog.mylaw.net/amendments-to-shield-eminent-domain-from-the-courts-have-left-the-
constitution-without-private-property-rights/ (last accessed on 28/12/2018)
11 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

scope for maltreatment of eminent domain. Public purpose proviso needs generous lucidity hence
government proposed to revise Land Acquisition Act, 1894 even, the unadulterated private
property arrangement can be dealt with as public purpose accommodate a stricter meaning of
public purpose. Along these lines the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 came into compel. Under this Act word
public purpose has been thoroughly characterized, with the goal that administration intercession
in obtaining is constrained to protection certain improvement ventures only. Except procurement
of land for government including open segment undertaking, an extra security shall require assent
of 80 for each penny of the task influenced families in securing of land for privately owned
businesses or for private-open association ventures.

POSITION OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN INDIA

The political discourse over land acquisition has proceeded in binary terms — industry versus
farmer, growth versus no growth — thereby obfuscating the real issue at the heart of the land
acquisition debate: the fear of arbitrary exercise of state power in reshaping property relations in
Indian society. Instead of tweaking the 2015 land acquisition bill with a few amendments here and
there to appease political allies and win over the Opposition, the government should use this
opportunity to address the issue of land acquisition in a systematic and constructive manner. At a
minimum, this requires three things.

The first is to rid the discourse of the confusion that surrounds the notion of eminent domain. The
power of eminent domain allows the state to forcibly acquire land from private individuals only
upon the satisfaction of three conditions. The acquisition must be pursuant to a validly enacted
law, for a public purpose and upon payment of just compensation. Therefore, acquisition of land
by the state for private industry must only be done upon the showing of a demonstrable public
purpose in each case.

While drafting the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, the
UPA government had argued in favour of state intervention for land acquisition on behalf of
private industry on the ground that in the particular circumstances of India, where land records are
unclear and there is unequal bargaining power between land losers and gainers, state intervention
12 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

is necessary to ensure ease of land acquisition for private industry and to safeguard the rights of
land losers to just compensation and rehabilitation. However, given that one quarter of all of
India’s districts have ongoing political and legal conflicts over land acquisition, it is clear that
neither purpose is being effectively served by state intervention. Therefore, we need to rethink
what kind of state intervention is necessary to achieve these purposes.

The second is a recognition that the way land acquisition is done in India is peculiar to our colonial
history. It may have some similarities with the way land is acquired in other British colonies that
inherited colonial laws, but is certainly not the way land was or is acquired in colonizing countries
like the UK, France and Germany. Our British colonial masters instituted a very different legal
regime governing the state’s relationship to land in India as compared to what was prevalent in
their own country, with lasting implications for conflicts over land throughout our post-
Independence history. For instance, in the UK, there is no standing law that allows government to
acquire land for private industry. Every acquisition of land for private industry must only be
following the enactment of a particular law for that purpose. If the US is a “constitutional” state
and the UK a “legislative” state, India is a “constitutional administrative” state, where the
Constitution gives individuals certain rights but the postcolonial Indian state continues to retain
vast powers to reshape individual rights without the need for legislative action. Moreover,
following the abolition of the fundamental right to property by the 44th Constitutional Amendment
in 1978, the balance tilted considerably in favour of the administrative state, as judicial review of
land acquisition under the 1894 act became extremely lenient. Therefore, not only do we need
more effective balancing of individual rights and state power at the level of legislation through the
enactment of a “good” land acquisition law but also at the constitutional level through effective
judicial scrutiny of acquisitions under Article 300A of the Constitution. Some of this scrutiny has
already begun. The Supreme Court and various high courts have finally decided 78 cases and
passed interim orders in 60 additional cases in the year and a half since the LARR Act came into
force. In many of these cases, courts have quashed arbitrary state action in land acquisition
proceedings.

The third is to acknowledge that currently, the land acquisition law is a “bad” law because it is an
unstable law. Numerous amendments to the law within a short space of time have created political
and legal uncertainty, which perhaps more than anything else negatively impacts economic

13 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

growth. The government must understand that simply easing the process of acquisition of land for
industry does not mean industrial growth will necessarily take place. Singur, the Niyamgiri hills
and the Posco sites are testimony to stalled industrial projects that impede investor confidence.

In order to draft a stable law, we need to first systematically collect data on several issues,
including: What is the nature of land conflicts in India’s 165 districts, and how do these conflicts
vary from state to state? What is the capacity of various states to conduct social impact
assessments, and how can we strengthen such capacity? Are there ways of systematising our land
records in ways that make direct purchase of land by industry easier and state intervention
unnecessary? In the case of acquisitions for exempted purposes under the 2015 bill, in the absence
of a thorough social impact assessment, how will the state identify livelihood losers who must be
compensated along with landowners? Will a blanket prohibition on the acquisition of multi-
cropped irrigated land help or hurt the interests of poor farmers in certain states? What are the real
costs of land acquisition for industry, including the costs of compensation and rehabilitation of
land losers, as well as transaction and opportunity costs, and how do these vary across industrial
sector and region?

Instead of devoting its energies to maneuvering the amended land acquisition bill through
Parliament, the government should agree to the constitution of a parliamentary standing committee
that can systematically collect and metabolize data on these issues. Failure to do so will mean that
we will be back debating amendments to the new law soon and continue the climate of economic,
political and legal instability on this issue

POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN IN INDIA

The use of eminent domain intensity of the state in the early sacred long periods of free India was
helped by the statute that had created around the pioneer Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The
reprimanded enactment and the case law that developed around it, made the intensity of prominent
space, and the idea of 'Public purpose', an issue exclusively for official assurance, and, along these
lines, non-justiciable. The Supreme Court in Sooraram Reddy v. Gatherer7, Ranga Reddy District,

7
(2008)9 SCC 552.
14 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

has enunciated the accompanying justification for survey of this power: (I) malafide exercise of
intensity; (ii) a public purpose that is just clearly an public purpose yet as a general rule of private
reason or insurance reason; (iii) a procurement without following the methodology under the Act;
(iv) when the obtaining is preposterous or silly; (v) when the securing is definitely not an public
purpose at all and the extortion on the resolution is evident. In any case, even today, prominent
area is among the tenets that have not been endeavored to be diminished by constitutionalism. This
principle is challenged; as it raises the great discussion of intensity of state versus individual rights.

Moreover, the convention has accepted much hugeness that it doesn't mirror the modified ideas of
the connection among natives and the State. Prof. Hugo Grotious an International legal scholar
characterized eminent domain in 1626 in this way the property of subject is under the prominent
space of the State, with the goal that the State or he who represents it might utilize and even
distance and wreck such property, in instances of outrageous need as well as for closures of open
utility. Since the intensity of prominent area is an indistinguishable rate of sway, there is no
compelling reason to give this specialist explicitly by the Constitution. It exists with no
announcement to impact. While the activity of the power is perceived, established arrangements
give shields subject to which the privilege might be worked out. For example in America three
restrictions, as confirmed by Cooley exists: (I) there must be a law approving the taking of the
property; (ii) the property must be taken for some open utilize; and (iii) just pay must be paid. The
significance of the intensity of famous space to the life of the State require scarcely be stressed.

It is so regularly fundamental for the correct execution of legislative capacities to take private
property for open utilize. The power is unavoidable for it is established upon the regular need and
intrigue and suitable the property of the individual individuals from the network to the more
prominent interests of the entire network. Anyway in doing as such the State ought to
accommodate the relating privileges of individual to guarantee their property. The Constitution of
India additionally perceives the intensity of famous space. In any case, this intensity of the state
has been in spotlight, more for the fiendishness that it is professedly attributed to realize. Not long
after Independence, the Supreme Court was accused of making a decision about the lawfulness of
specific laws, which were planned to annul the medieval zamindari (landowning) framework.

15 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

Supreme Court in Chiranjit Lal v. Association of India8 held that prominent space is a privilege
characteristic in each sovereign to take and suitable private property having a place with singular
residents. Procurement or claiming private property which is suggested in condition (2) of Article
31 of Indian Constitution, such taking must be for public purpose. The other condition is that no
property can be taken, except if the law approves such appointment contains an arrangement for
installment of remuneration in the way as set down in the provision. The intensity of eminent
domain was under the examination of the Court. In clarifying the power, the Court held that
prominent area was "the intensity of the sovereign to take property for open use without the
proprietor's assent". Which means is that the power in its unchangeable terms i.e., (a) capacity to
take, (b) without the proprietor's assent, and (c) for general public use.

The reference to the 'sovereign ' was an omen of one of the issue is that it has tenacious the presence
and employments of the prominent area control, that is, the connection between the state and the
general population. The ability to take and the inadequate idea of 'public use', has made
dispossession and mass removal of individuals. In India, with this outline of „social‟ rudiments to
the property rights, a new phase had begun. K. K. Mathew, justice of Kesavananda Bharati vs
State of Kerala9 stated this exactly: "Property in consumable goods or means of production worked
by their owners (use aspects of property) were justified as necessary condition of a free and
purposeful life; but when property gave power not only over things but through things over persons
(power aspect of property) also, it was not justified as it was an instrument of servitude rather than
freedom"

EMINENT DOMAIN AND LAND ACQUISITION

A standout amongst the most noteworthy rule worried about the activity of the privilege of eminent
domain in India was the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The law that has created around this Act has
put serious limitations on the likelihood to challenge the intensity of the State to obligatorily
obtain. It sets out what establishes 'public purpose' and it hands over land, 'without encumbrances',
to the State, to do whatever it needs with it freely. In spite of the fact that it accommodates

8
1951 AIR 41, 1950 SCR 869
9
]Bhat, P. I. (2004) Fundamental Rights: A Study of their interrelationships. Kolkata: Eastern Law House.
16 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

instalment of just remuneration, yet processing the pay is surrounded by an arrangement of

foreordained components which are 'to be considered in deciding pay' and is limited to the market
estimation of land, facilitate the "substitution esteem isn't the standard endorsed by law". There
are additionally 'matters to be dismissed in deciding pay which bars any hesitance of the individual
intrigued to part with the land gained, in light of mandatory nature of securing. It additionally gives
that thirty for every penny of the figured market esteem is to be paid, in the idea of solatium.

That, in total and substance, is the privilege of the individual against mandatory obtaining of land.
In 1984, the meaning of 'public purpose' was reconsidered to incorporate 'the arrangement of land
for private purposes to people dislodged or influenced by reason of execution of any plan attempted
by government, any nearby expert or a partnership possessed or controlled by the State'. This made
uprooting for a venture one more purpose behind obligatory procurement under the Act, with no
corresponding ideal to arrive on which to resettle. In Basantibai v. State of Maharashtra10 the
Court did seek to interpret the Article 300-A favorably to the property owners by reading therein
the twin requirements of „public purpose‟ and „compensation‟.

Under Article 300-A the legislature cannot sanction the deprivation of property for a public
purpose. However, the Parliament not intended to confer an absolute right on the legislature to
deprive a citizen of his property merely by the passing of a black-letter law. The ostensible purpose
of repealing Article 31, especially Article 31(2), is to make free the legislature from the
constitutional restraint of paying compensation for the property acquired. But doubts have been
raised whether this purpose could be achieved by reaping Article 31. It has been argued that the
two requirements of public purpose‟ and „compensation‟ in case of acquisition of property are
inherent and essential elements or ingredients or inseparable concomitants of the power of eminent
domain therefore, of entry 42, list III as well.

The doctrine of eminent domain really recognizes the natural right of a person to hold property,
and if that right may be taken away by the legislation without satisfying the two requirements, then
the entire concept of rule of law would be redundant. The introduction of Article 300-A in the
Constitution while deleting Article 31 clearly indicates that the Parliament intended to confer right
on the citizen to hold property which could not be deprived without authority of law. In spite of

10
AIR 1984 Bom. 366.
17 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

this, the constitutional obligation to pay adequate amount to the expropriated owner is not taken
away. Moreover, after the Maneka judgment,11 the expression “authority of law” must necessarily
mean “just, fair and reasonable” law in keeping with the touchstones of Article 14, 19 and 21 of
the Indian Constitution

CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE DOCTRINE OF EMIINENT DOMAIN

Basic Appraisal of the Doctrine of Eminent Domain is that owner possessed homes and
independent ventures which are the common casualties of eminent domain with no legitimate plan
of action. It is contended that administration should shield the regular advantage, assurance and
security of the entire network while practicing its capacity.

The intensity of eminent domain should be practiced painstakingly to acquire private property for
public purpose. Social experts question the self-assertive seizure of private properties by the State
to convey it to a private individual or element for business reason. The line of boundary between
people in general reason and business reason for public goal is thin and the State can go too far in
different conditions. An enquiry into Eminent domain exhibits that this power has been translated
as being near the supreme intensity of the State. Public purpose, the gathered avocation of
procurement, has a wide and opposite reach. The issue is additionally intensified by the way that
the ability to figure out what comprises public purpose, basically rests with the State. The
expression 'purpose useful to the general public' has adequate versatility to incorporate any land
utilize.12 Such unbridled intensity of the State, both to unilaterally determine what constitutes the
‘public good’ and to compulsorily appropriate private land for such alleged good has been always
challenged, as furthering the colonial legacy.

A perceptible advancement has been the strategies of the State, upheld by enactment, to
reintroduce the intensity of the 'sovereign' to utilize its tact in encouraging the convergence of land
in partnerships. Under the attire of its capacity of eminent domain the State is obtaining land for
street, mining, lodging, healing centers and other foundation formative undertakings, without

11
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
12
Available at http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/126508/9/09_chapter%202.pdf (last accessed on
28/12/2018)
18 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

understanding the effect of such procurement. In this plan destitute individuals are hollowed
against organizations and the State goes about as a quiet onlooker.

The tenet of eminent domain provides for the State an immensity over land and related assets and
furthermore over the lives of individuals, one of the researcher has advanced after due of challenge
in the hypothesis of eminent domain.

The possibility that the State is the proprietor of land, and can manage it as its will, isn't established
in eminent domain. Eminent domain just manages the assuming control of land from a man who
has lawfully perceived rights over the land. In exchange of land, which is under the control of the
State, to extend specialist including income land and timberland arrive on the thoughts of state as
proprietor, having powers past that which typically inheres in any individual as proprietor, wins.
In law, there is a method for 'change of user' of land, which a state should fundamentally pursue
while redirecting the land to a reason other than that for which the land was planned. The ability
to get by State, the land possessed by its subjects hails from the privilege of eminent domain
vesting in the State, which is basically a property of sovereign intensity of the State. Inasmuch as
the general population reason subsists, the activity of the power by the State to secure place that is
known for its subjects without respect to wishes of the proprietor or individual intrigued by the
land can't be addressed.

CONCLUSION

Constitution of India gets its establishment from the Government of India Act, 1935 and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Section 299 of the Government of India Act 1935
anchored the property ideal against seizure without pay and furthermore against procurement of
land for a nonpublic purpose. Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
perceives the Right to private property, India being a signatory to the affirmation perceived the
property right in Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 under part III of the Constitution as a fundamental right.
Article 31(1) was a kind of conclusion with Article 17 of United Nation Declaration of Human
Rights i.e., 'nobody will be self-assertively denied of his property'. Also Article 19(1)(f) is result
with Article 17(1) of United Nations Declaration of Human Rights i.e., "Everyone has the right to
own property alone as well as in association of others".
19 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution perceives the privilege of eminent domain is explicitly
delineated by giving "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation"
Article 31(2) is like the fifth amendment of the US Constitution 'nor will private property taken
for public purpose without just compensation'. Theoretically, the beginning of the State's capacity
to get arrive having a place with an individual lies morally justified of eminent domain.
Subsequently, Right to property isn't an absolute right; it permits the state obstruction with it for
legitimate purposes. Anyway to legitimize the State's impedance with private property numerous
Constitution and Human Rights archives expect it to be people in general intrigue. Government
impedance may happen as seizure of existing property of people when public intrigue warrants.

In the wake of canceling Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, the word 'property' utilized in Article 300A must
be comprehended with regards to sovereign intensity of eminent domain is practiced by the State
and confiscated the property. The expression deprivation of property indicates distinctive ideas
under Article 300A, No individual will be denied of his property spare by power of law. Law
implies a law made by Parliament or State governing body. Hardship by some other mode isn't
procurement or if there is no law, there is no hardship. Article 300A additionally gets pulled in to
an obtaining or claiming private property for public purpose, by important ramifications, as per
the law made by the Parliament or the State governing body. It is innate in each sovereign State
without proprietor's assent state can get property for open utilize, subjected to simply pay thereof.
Constitution offers capacity to take private property for public purpose and forbids the activity of
same is normally alluded to as 'condemnation or expropriation'.

The principal question raised here is the reason the legislature ought to repay when open intrigue
beats singular intrigue (right)?. Second, when and how liberally the administration ought to
redress?. These two outrageous positions are inadmissible. A manage offering complete pay is
essentially pertinent. The essential rule requiring pay is the equivalent sharing of public burdens.
The shamefulness in taking is the state's grabbing the abundance of somebody to support all. The
Court has surveyed the remuneration prerequisite with regards to reasonable equalization test and
it thinks of it as is important to pay just in instances of procurement of private property for public
purposes. On the off chance that the point of the state activity is to avert unsafe utilization of
property, it is a police control direction and does not require instalment of remuneration. Be that
as it may, if the point of the State activity is to public use, it establishes taking and requires

20 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

instalment of pay. The Court considers the measure of remuneration likewise inside the reasonable
equalization test. It requires instalment of a 'sensible pay'. Since there is no unmistakable rule to
choose what is 'sensible' it is for the judge to choose.

In Chiranjit Lal13 case Supreme Court held that the eminent domain is the privilege of the
sovereign to take and fitting the private the property having a place with a person for open utilize.
The constraint in proviso (2) of Article 31 is that such taking must be for 'public purpose' and no
property can be taken, except if the law approves such apportionment contains an arrangement for
installment of pay. The eminent domain power can be characterized as the state's privilege to seize
private property, discard its proprietorship and expect full legitimate right and title to it for the
sake of some apparent open great.

On the off chance that the eminent domain control isn't perceived the administration needs to get
such grounds through buying from the free market. Be that as it may, free market exchanges are
not constantly appropriate and productive to acknowledge vast ventures, for example, building
roadways, railroads and other formative tasks. Hence, famous space control has for quite some
time been perceived as an authentic expert of the State even by common law regulations. The
intensity of eminent domain has been limited by the necessities of 'public interest' and
'compensation'. 'People in general intrigue' prerequisites serve to forestall subjective government
and discretionary appropriation of private property. The remuneration prerequisite serves to even
out the sharing of public burdens.

A State can meddle with property right just for an open decent. This prerequisite likewise plans to
counteract maltreatment of sovereign power by method for impedances. Another significant
explanation behind maltreatment of intensity of prominent area is that meaning of the word 'open
design' is wide. Legitimate view on 'public purpose' and lawful status winning in India over 'public
purpose' has been given extension for maltreatment of famous space control. Eminent domain
control manhandled not exclusively to favour, open or private undertakings yet in addition to
propel the targets of the administration. Presently multi day's Supreme Court has translated the
word 'public purpose' in more extensive way i.e., property is taken for 'public use' if, the taking

13
1951 AIR 41,1950 SCR 869
21 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]
VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12
 ISSN 2455-4782

outcomes in some open favorable position or advantage is adequate. Under this view, anything
that upgrades open welfare establishes a 'public use'.

22 | P a g e JOURNAL ON CONTEMPORARY ISSUES OF LAW [JCIL]

VOLUME 4 ISSUE 12