Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, owners of land in Sy.No.207, Hulikunte Village, Doddaballapura Taluk, filed a writ petition seeking release of at least 50% ad interim compensation for their land acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, or alternatively permission to alienate or encumber the property. The land was notified for acquisition, but the process was delayed. The petitioners, some of whom were suffering from terminal cancer, urgently required funds for medical treatment. During the hearing, their counsel submitted that they would be satisfied if permitted to alienate or encumber the land to raise funds. The state opposed the petition, contending that acquisition takes time, no interim compensation is payable, and law prohibits any transaction after the preliminary notification under Section 28(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The KIADB filed objections citing resistance from other landowners, issues with a link road, and a comprehensive review of the acquisition, leaving the petitioners with no choice but to wait. The court, after hearing the parties, permitted the petitioners to alienate or encumber a reasonable portion of the property. The court reasoned that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution has expanded to include the right to health and, when property is the only source of livelihood, deprivation of property may violate Article 21. It observed that the right to property, though no longer a fundamental right after the 44th Amendment, remains protected under Article 300A, and is the foundation for exercising fundamental freedoms like speech and association under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c). The court held that in the exceptional circumstances where delay in acquisition imperils life, permitting alienation is necessary to prevent the constitutional guarantee from becoming a farce. It emphasized that the Supreme Court has recognized that depriving a poor farmer of his immovable property can violate Article 21, and that compensation is inherent in acquisition. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed to the extent of granting permission to alienate or encumber a reasonable portion of the land to secure funds for medical treatment.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Life and Personal Liberty - Article 21, Constitution of India - Right to life includes right to health; property essential for survival partakes fundamental right character - The court held that when the petitioners suffering from cancer required funds from their only property for medical treatment, the delay in the acquisition process imperiled their life; thus, the right to life under Article 21 requires permitting alienation or encumbrance to secure treatment, as otherwise the constitutional guarantee becomes illusory (Para 4). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Articles 300A, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(c), Constitution of India - Property is foundation for fundamental freedoms; unreasonable curtailment violates Part III - The court observed that without property, rights like freedom of speech and association become illusory; therefore, breaching property rights may amount to violation of fundamental rights, and compensation is inherent in acquisition under Article 300A (Para 4). C) Land Acquisition - Acquisition Process - Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966; Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28(1) - Preliminary notification prohibits transactions; exceptional circumstances allow alienation - The court held that in view of the medical emergency and the prolonged acquisition, the petitioners must be permitted to alienate or encumber a reasonable portion of the property to fund life-saving treatment, as the delay would metaphysically take away the oxygen mask (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners can be permitted to alienate or encumber the land notified for acquisition under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966, given their urgent medical needs and the prolonged acquisition process.
Final Decision
The court permitted the petitioners to alienate or encumber a reasonable portion of the subject property to secure funds for medical treatment, holding that the right to life under Article 21 overrides procedural delays in acquisition and that breaching property rights may violate fundamental freedoms. The writ petition was allowed to the extent of granting permission to alienate or encumber a reasonable portion of the land in Sy.No.207, Hulikunte Village, Doddaballapura Taluk.
Law Points
- right to life under Article 21 includes right to health and right to property when property is only source of livelihood
- deprivation of property during prolonged acquisition process can violate Article 21
- right to property is foundation for fundamental freedoms under Part III of the Constitution
- unreasonable curtailment of ownership rights transcends Article 300A and violates fundamental rights
- compensation is inherent in acquisition
- in exceptional circumstances court may permit alienation of notified land to prevent loss of life
