Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

The doctrine of eminent domain empowers the State to acquire private property for public use with fair compensation. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024) redefined the scope of this power, emphasizing a careful balance between individual property rights and public welfare within constitutional boundaries.

Body

Justification of Eminent Domain and Constitutional Foundations

• Eminent domain is rooted in sovereign power, allowing the State to compulsorily acquire private property for a legitimate public purpose.
  • It underpins land acquisition for infrastructure, welfare schemes, and economic development.
• Article 300A of the Constitution protects property as a constitutional right, allowing deprivation only through legal authority.
  • Though no longer a fundamental right, it remains essential for safeguarding personal and economic freedom.
• The doctrine requires three core conditions: a valid public purpose, legal authority, and just compensation.
  • These ensure acquisition is justifiable and respects individual dignity.
• In Sudharsan Charitable Trust v. Tamil Nadu (2018), the SC upheld land acquisition in public interest, provided due compensation is ensured.
  • The ruling reinforced the legitimacy of eminent domain when exercised responsibly.

Judicial Interpretation and Scope under Indian Law

• In Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the SC clarified that Article 39(b) does not authorize property acquisition.
  • Authority instead derives from Entry 42 of List III and the doctrine of eminent domain.
• The judgment held that not all private property qualifies as "material resources" of the community, overturning earlier rulings in Ranganath Reddy and Sanjeev Coke.
  • It called for a case-by-case test based on nature, scarcity, and societal need.
• The Court invoked the Public Trust Doctrine, making the State a trustee of essential resources for public benefit.
  • This limits indiscriminate acquisition and promotes sustainability.
• The Court reaffirmed the validity of Article 31C but restricted its use to ensure property rights under Article 300A are not bypassed arbitrarily.
  • This protects constitutional balance and individual freedoms.
• The ruling emphasized that just compensation is non-negotiable, reinforcing economic fairness alongside legal compliance.
  • The judgment aligns with Ambedkar's vision of economic democracy, avoiding rigid ideological imposition.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has redefined the scope of eminent domain by insisting on public interest, procedural fairness, and compensation. The balance it strikes between State power and property rights upholds the spirit of a constitutional democracy committed to justice and individual dignity.