KT Plantation Pvt Ltd v State of Karnataka

• KT Plantation Pvt Ltd owned coffee estates in Karnataka
• The Karnataka Legislature enacted laws providing for acquisition of plantation lands
• The plantation owners challenged the acquisition on the ground that it violated Article 300A
• The State contended that since the right to property was no longer a fundamental right, the standard of review was minimal

1. Whether the right to property under Article 300A is merely a statutory right or a constitutional right, and what standards govern the exercise of eminent domain power post the 44th Amendment.

• Article 300A confers a constitutional right, not merely a statutory right
• The State's power of eminent domain continues to exist but must be exercised through valid law
• Deprivation must be for a public purpose, and the law must provide for compensation
• The word "law" in Article 300A implies a law that is just, fair, and reasonable (substantive due process)
• While Article 14 applies to test the validity of acquisitory legislation, the absence of Article 19(1)(f) means the reasonableness test of Article 19(5) no longer applies

After the 44th Amendment, the right to property under Article 300A is a constitutional right requiring the State to demonstrate authority of law for any deprivation. The law must satisfy Article 14, must serve a public purpose, and must provide for compensation that is not illusory. The power of eminent domain is inherent in sovereignty but its exercise is subject to constitutional limitations including the basic structure doctrine.