We can't pretend that we understand everything that is going on in the Supreme Court of India's recent opinion in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, No. 2013-6156 (Aug. 7, 2020) (but when has that ever stopped us before?), but after reviewing the decision, we thought we would post it because of the court's holding:
96. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right as observed by this Court in Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and Others. In view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The appellant trust cannot be deprived of its property save in accordance with law.97. Article 300A of the Constitution of India embodies the doctrine of eminent domain which comprises two parts, (i) possession of property in the public interest; and (ii) payment of reasonable compensation.
Slip op. at 46-47 (footnote omitted).
As we read the decision, there's a road that the government thought it owned. There seems to be a debate about whether the road actually existed, or was just on the locality's plans. But in any event, the road was across private property, and the owners asserted "that the internal road had never been acquired by the Pune Municipal Corporation[,]" and "[t]he Town and Planning Department also admitted that Pune Municipal Corporation had wrongly been shown to be owner of said road." Slip op. at 4.
The owners instituted a case challenging the ownership of the road, arguing that Article 300A of the Constitution of India required reasonable compensation when private property is acquired, and that compensation had not been paid. Thus, they argued, the road could not be government-owned.
Article 300A is not a typical "takings" or "just compensation" requirement, but is more along the lines of a "law of the land" clause (we're looking at you, North Carolina):
No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.
The court concluded that although property is not a "fundamental" right expressly protected by the Constitution, this provision means that when an owner is deprived of property, the term "authority of law" encompasses the right to reasonable compensation. The government has the power to take property for the public benefit, but when it does so "it is obligated to compensate the injury by making just compensation[.]" Slip op. at 47. The government may not have formally owned the road, but even if it acted like it did it had the obligated to pay compensation: "even though the right to claim compensation or the obligation of the State to pay compensation to a person who is deprived of his property is not expressly provided in Article 300A of the Constitution, it is inbuilt in the Article." Slip op. at 48.
Because compensation had not been paid, the court concluded that the owners of the adjacent private property owned the land on which the road was mapped, and "we direct the Respondent authorities to act in terms of the Award dated 16th May, 1972 and delete the name of the Pune Municipal Corporation as owner of the private road in the records pertaining to the Scheme and carry out such other consequential alterations as may be necessary under Section 91 of the Regional and Town Planning Act." Slip op. at 57.
For more on the decision, see "Right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but still a Constitutional right: Supreme Court reiterates," from Bar and Bench.
Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, No. 2013-6156 (India S. Ct. Aug. 7, 2020)
