Right To Property Under Article 300A Available To A Person Who Isn't A Citizen Of India : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that the right to property as enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution extends to persons who are not citizens of India.

“The expression person in Article 300-A covers not only a legal or juristic person but also a person who is not a citizen of India. The expression property is also of a wide scope and includes not only tangible or intangible property but also all rights, title and interest in a property”, a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed.

The bench made this observation while deciding that an 'enemy property' under the Enempy Property Act, 1968 is not exempted from municipal laws as it is not vested with the Union Government.

The Supreme Court stated that the Parliament had legislated the Enemy Property Act, 1968 in order to have uniformity vis-à-vis all enemy properties throughout the length and breadth of the country in that the same are protected, managed, and dealt with uniformly in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Taking note of the objects and purpose of the Act, the Supreme Court noted that Article 300-A of the Constitutional being a constitutional right to hold property not only extends to Legal or juristic person but also to persons who are not a citizen of India.

The Supreme Court expressed concerned that if the ownership of the property gets transferred from the enemy to the Custodian who takes possession of the property and administers it or manages it and thereby the ownership would then be that of the Union, in that event, it would be a deprivation of the property of the true owner who may be an enemy or an enemy subject or enemy firm but such deprivation of property cannot be without payment of compensation.

“Having regard to the salutary principles of Article 300-A of the Act, we cannot construe the taking possession of the enemy property for the purpose of administration of the same by the Custodian, as an instance of transfer of ownership from the true owner to the Custodian and thereby to the Union.”

Counsels For Appellant(s) Mr. Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. Mr. Kamal Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohit Shivkumar, Adv. Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR