The word “property” is derived from a latin word i.e., “propertietat” which is having a meaning that“a thing owned”. The concept regarding property is having a very relevant place in the life of human beings. We know that property and its ownership are always related to one another. Ahrens had given a good definition to the word “property”. Ahrens defined property as, “it is a material object to the immediate power of a person”. The right to property mentioned under Article 31 of the Indian constitution which was a fundamental right was omitted by the constitution by the forty fourth constitutional amendment of 1978. This amendment abolished the right to property as a fundamental right to a constitutional right and held that it will come under Article 300A of the Indian constitution. Article 31(A) of the Indian constitution is to facilitate the agrarian reforms. Hence the protection is not applicable to a law which seeks to modify the right of the owner without any agrarian reform. Therefore now the right to property is not an absolute right but it is only a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300(A) of the constitution of India.
The case that has to be analyzed here is Vajaralu v Special Deputy Collector. Here in the case, Vajaralu v Special Deputy Collector, the court held that the land acquisition (Madras Amendment Act 1951) is not an agrarian reform. The reason for this is that, it was created for clearing the slum but also for the housing scheme. Hence it is held not to be an agrarian reform.
Article 31(C) of the constitution of India empowers the state government as well as the parliament to enact laws under the directive principles of state policy specified in Article 39(b) and (C). Such laws cannot be challenged upon as the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article14, Article 19 and Article 31 of the constitution of India.
Another important case that has to be analyzed is Keshavanda Bharathi v State of Kerala. In, Keshavanda Bharathi v State of Kerala, the court clearly held that the laws enacted by the state legislature and parliament can be subject to judicial review if it destroys the basic structure of the constitution of India.
The second stage of Article 31(C) of the constitution of India, arose upon the forty second constitutional amendment, the amendment give a complete protection to the laws which are passed under the directive principles of state policy under Article 39 (b) and (C). It gives dominance to the directive principles of state policy over the fundamental rights.
Another case that has to be looked into is Minerva mills v Union of India. In the case, Minerva mills v Union of India the court clearly held the forty second constitutional amendment is as clearly unconstitutional because it destroys the basic structure of the constitution of India. The court also pointed out that in order to achieve the objective of our Indian constitution, both the fundamental rights as well as the directive principles of state policy should be balanced.
