With regard to the question of the jurisdiction of the civil court, the Chamber analysed section 46 of the 1960 Act, which reads as follows: Since the eminent domain is a “despotic power”, it should be used rarely and only for genuinely public purposes. These are uses enjoyed by the public and not by a narrow section of the public; And in the case of the federal government, that means constitutionally approved use. However, facts play a role in defining “public use,” and sometimes there is no clear line. Nevertheless, some general considerations can be noted. First, if the compensation is fair, there is no problem if ownership is transferred to the public for genuine public use such as those mentioned above. It is also not a problem if ownership is transferred to a private party – for example. to avoid the situation of reluctance that might arise when laying cable or telephone lines – provided that further use is open to all on a non-discriminatory basis, which often needs to be regulated in the public interest. In such cases, if the eminent domain were available only if the public retained title, the public would be deprived of the relative efficiency of private property. India`s Supreme Court has shared many observations on property rights, stating that the authorities of a welfare state cannot take possession of them without due process and law.
The Supreme Court also stated that the state cannot invade a citizen`s private property and claim ownership of land under the pretext of “adverse property.” If Congress enacts general legislation enunciating the constitutional rights of landowners following the common law in defining the terms of the Possession Clause, it will effectively abolish any real distinction between partial and total extraction. Nevertheless, Congress should explicitly say what it is doing. To understand its meaning and what it means for an individual, it is important to know the difference between fundamental and human rights. As mentioned above, legislation of the type recommended here would not be necessary if the courts read and applied the opt-out clause correctly. Because they are not, it is up to Congress to intervene. Yet there is a certain anomaly in asking Congress to do the job. Finally, in our system, political powers and States represent and pursue the interests of the people within the limits set by the Constitution; and it is for the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to ensure that these constraints are respected. To do this, the court interprets and applies the Constitution when deciding cases before it – often against political branches or a state, when a landlord tries either to force government action on the grounds that it violates his rights, or to obtain compensation under the withdrawal clause, or both. Therefore, it is somewhat anomalous to ask or expect Congress to correct any wrongs that Congress itself might commit.
Isn`t Congress simply doing its job by carrying out the will of the public? After independence, there was a strong will to continue the socialist policies of Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru and to remove the Zamindars and other rural mediators who had acquired rights to large tracts of land during colonial rule.