Evolution Of Property Rights: Article 300A
- IJLLR Journal
- 8 minutes ago
- 2 min read
Sattyanshi Patial, BA LLB,University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh
There is nothing which strikes the imagination and engages the attention of mankind as the right of property. “It is that sole dominion in which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world”, wrote William Blackstone. Yet in the constitutional framework of India, this sole dominion has undergone a radical structural change. Property is defined not just as a physical object but as a bundle of sticks that encompasses the rights to use, exclude, alienate and even destroy. When the state enforces an acquisition then it executes a structural paradox: it incinerates the entire collective bundle of the sticks while returning a single fragile stick that is the monetary compensation. This operates under the doctrine holding that the Sovereign maintains an ultimate and an original title over all territory within its borders. Thus, the state operates under the pretense that it is not stealing land but simply reclaiming its own original property. Eminent socialist like Karl Marx have observed that the power of eminent domain is nothing but the legal mask worn by state to forcefully commodify ancestral space for the expansion of capital. India has thus shifted to protect corporate interest.
Nor has this relationship between the Indian and his soil always been so fragile. Ancient India knew no such concept of land. The laws put forth by Sage Manu in Manusmriti firmly stated that sovereignty over land was never solely that of the King. Rather the untilled forest legally belonged to the person who first cleared it for agriculture. The King's share was only a small portion of the agricultural produce which was deemed Bali and given in return for military protection. The genealogy of India's land acquisition began with the forcible acquisition of land by the East India Company. Colonial Bengal Regulation I of 1824 was passed with the motive to acquire land for establishing salt manufacturing houses. This Regulation was expanded upon and introduced into the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The Act served as a tool for extractive exploitation as it allowed for no provisions of R&R of displaced persons. Instead it made a vague exception by empowering the "Urgency Clause" under Section 17. This Clause allowed the decision of the Collector to obtain possession of any civilian land within a period of 15 days, in which a notice had been published to the general public, thereby overruling any objection that the civilians may have raised against the acquisition and leaving families suddenly homeless.
