Right to property still sacrosanct; government can't unlawfully deprive citizens of it: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that even though right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it continues to occupy a sacrosanct position as a constitutional and legal right under Article 300A of the Constitution [Rajiv Sarin & Ors v Directorate of Estates & Ors]. .In a judgment delivered on May 2, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav explained that Article 300A is a dynamic constitutional safeguard that strikes a delicate balance between the sovereign power of the State and proprietary rights of individuals.“The said Article stipulates that no person shall be deprived of their property except by authority of law… The provision embodies the principles of the rule of law, procedural fairness, and non-arbitrariness, mandating that any deprivation of property must be sanctioned by law and carried out in a just and equitable manner dynamic constitutional safeguard that strikes a delicate balance between the sovereign power of the State and the proprietary rights of individuals,” the Bench said. .It reiterated that public interest and the rule of law require the State to be held accountable like any other juristic person when it unlawfully deprives a citizen of property or causes injury through negligence. The powers of the State are not plenary or absolute but are circumscribed by constitutional and statutory limitations and any executive or legislative action that seeks to divest a citizen of property without due process, in the absence of an enabling law, would fall foul of Article 300A and render such action void ab initio, the Court stressed. "The State must not only comply with the letter of the law but also act in a manner that is fair, just, and equitable. Executive overreach beyond the four corners of the law must be met with constitutional censure, for when the protector of rights becomes the violator, the very fabric of the rule of law is imperilled. In a constitutional democracy governed by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience, the preservation of legal rights such as that of proprietary must remain an unyielding commitment of the State.”.The High Court made the observations while declaring that the Central government's possession and occupation of a flat in Delhi owned by the late HK Sarin, was illegal.Sarin was subject to raids during the Emergency of 1975 and a preventive detention order was issued against him under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The order was withdrawn after the Emergency. The suit arose from the wrongful forfeiture of the flat under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The SAFEMA notice was first issued in 1980, but the forfeiture order was passed 18 years later. Interestingly, the property was leased to the Directorate of Estates in 1976, and the lease expired in 1995. After the property was forfeited in 1998, the government stopped paying rent. .After considering the case, the Bench noted that the property was in the unlawful possession of the government from 1999 to 2020 and, therefore, Sarin’s heirs are entitled to mesne profits as a form of damages. “Accordingly, the aggregate notional lease value recoverable for the entire period from 1999 to 2020 stands at ₹ 2,28,87,872.56/-. From this aggregate sum, a deduction of ₹52,08,323/- is made, accounting for arrears of rent already paid by the defendants before the Writ Court. Thus, the net mesne profits stand at ₹1,76,79,549.56/- (rounded of to 1,76,79,550/-), reflecting the financial loss suffered by the plaintiffs due to the unauthorised/illegal and prolonged occupation of the suit property by the defendants,” the Court ordered..Advocates Sidhant Kumar, Manya Chandok and Om Batra appeared for heirs of HK Sarin. The Central government was represented through advocates Vikrant N Goyal, Nitin Chandra and Aditya Shukla. .[Read Judgment]