Right to Property had been considered as one of the seven fundamental rights enshrined in

“Part III” of the Constitution of India. Articles 19(1)(f) and Article 3(1) and Article 31(2)
dealt with the Right to Property.
Article 19(1)(f) stated that ____________________________.
Further, Right to Property got abolished as fundamental right in 1978, with the passing of the
44th Amendment act.
Now the question that arises is that why the government felt the need to amend, and further
repeal Right to Property as a fundamental right. The major reason behind this was Excessive
possession of land by the zamindars and tenants, which caused hinderance for the
implementation of Ceiling Laws in the country. Ceilings laws state that a person will hold the
maximum area limit of the land. If a person holding more than the maximum limit that land
was taken away from them by the Government of India. But since RTP was a fundamental
right, this was not possible then. Further, since large number of lands were owned by a single
person, it created a monopoly in the market. Lastly, it posed as an hinderance to the
government in industrialization, which was the need of the hour post-independence.
Now, talking about the amendments which arose because of the issues of the Bela Banerjee
case of 1954. The case involved the West Bengal government which sought to pay off the
owners of the land on the basis of the market rate on some distant date in the past. Therefore,
the petitioner claimed the compensation to be way lesser of the market value of the land. The
Fourth Amendment modified article 31(2) and stated that the compensation given in turn of
property cannot be questioned in any court of law. Further, the 25 th amendment act by the
Indira Gandhi government replaced the word “compensation” with “amount” so as to deny
the claims of the money given in turn of the property being unjustifiable.

Talking about the Exceptions to Right to Property,

Article 31A of the constitution stated laws made regarding the acquisition of any estate or
right by the government or management of any property. Further, if the land taken belonged
to personal agricultural land and lied under the ceiling limit, then it should be compensated at
market value, and is also subject to challenge in courts.
Land reforms were put under Part IX of the constitution, and Article 31B of the constitution
stated that if any article under part III of the constitution is violated, it is immune from
Judicial challenge if under Schedule IX of the constitution. This had been done to protect the
laws from judicial challenge.
This had been challenged in the case of IR Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu.
The basic issue before the Court was whether it was permissible for the Parliament to insert
laws into the Ninth Schedule post-Kesavananda Bharati case in order to make them immune
from judicial review on the basis of the basic structure doctrine. It was amply clear that the
legislature in the guise of the Ninth Schedule was trying to escape not only the limitations
imposed by the basic structure doctrine but also bypass the judicial review of legislation that
were manifestly ultra vires to the Constitution. The court in the judgement said that the basic
structure is the very essence of the Indian Constitution any law amendment found
inconsistent with Part 3 of the Indian Constitution even if it is in the Ninth Schedule would be
struck down by the process of judicial review.

Now, talking about the Forty Fourth Amendment Act,

Right to Property was removed from the list of fundamental rights (Article 31) and was made
a legal right under Article 300A. Furthermore, Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 had been
repealed. The newly added Article, i.e., Article 300- A stated that no personal shall be
deprived of his property by authority of law. This made an individual incompetent to move to
the Supreme Court under Article-32 in case of violation of fright to property. Furthermore,
since Article 31 had been repealed too, therefore one could not claim compensation against
the property in court, but rather accept the amount given by the government.

To conclude, it can be said that post 44th Amendment, Right to Property became a legal right
and was repealed as a fundamental right. There have been restrictions rendered on the state’s
ability to acquire property non-justiciable. The amount that has to be given against the
property taken by the government solely lies on the government’s discretion and the same
cannot be challenged in the court.