Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v State of Gujarat
Rule established
Right to property under Art. 300A is a constitutional right (not fundamental); deprivation only by authority of law
Facts
- Petitioners challenged State acquisition of their land
- Argued that deprivation without compensation violated their right to property
- Constitutional position after 44th Amendment (1978) repealing Art. 19(1)(f) and Art. 31 was in question
Issue
- Whether the right to property under Art. 300A is a fundamental right enforceable under Art. 32, or merely a constitutional right enforceable under Art. 226.
Held
- Art. 300A confers a constitutional right, not a fundamental right. No person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law. Executive action without legal backing is invalid, but writ under Art. 32 is not available for Art. 300A violation, only Art. 226 before High Courts.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to property is a constitutional right under Art. 300A. Deprivation must be by authority of law (legislation or executive action traceable to legislation). Absence of legal authority renders deprivation void, but the remedy is Art. 226, not Art. 32.
How to use it in an exam
Use in Part A when asked about the constitutional status of property rights post-44th Amendment. Key line: "Right to property is no longer a fundamental right but remains a constitutional right under Art. 300A."
Source
Source: AIR 1995 Supreme Court 142
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.