Kerala High Court Strikes Down Kerala Minerals Vesting Law, Says Deprivation of Private Property Without Compensation Violates Article 300A
In a landmark judgment reinforcing the constitutional protection of private property, the Kerala High Court has declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 unconstitutional, holding that the State cannot appropriate privately owned mineral rights without paying compensation or following the constitutional safeguards guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for property rights, mineral ownership, and State acquisition laws across India.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. allowed a batch of appeals filed by landowners from Kerala’s Malabar region, overturning an earlier Single Judge’s decision that had upheld the validity of the legislation. The Bench held that while the State possesses extensive regulatory powers over minerals, it cannot extinguish vested private proprietary rights through legislation without complying with constitutional requirements relating to deprivation of property.
The Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 2021 retrospectively vested ownership of all mineral rights beneath lands in the Malabar region with the State Government from 30 December 2019, irrespective of whether such rights had previously belonged to private landowners. The legislation effectively extinguished long-recognised private mineral rights without providing any compensation to affected owners, leading to constitutional challenges before the High Court.
The High Court held that Article 300A, though no longer a fundamental right, remains a valuable constitutional guarantee protecting citizens from arbitrary deprivation of property. The Bench observed that the State cannot take over private property merely by enacting legislation; such deprivation must satisfy constitutional standards of legality, public purpose and fairness, including payment of compensation wherever proprietary rights are compulsorily acquired. A law that simply transfers private property to the State without any compensatory mechanism cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
The Court further ruled that the impugned Act violated not only Article 300A, but also offended the guarantees of equality and fairness embedded in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. According to the Bench, extinguishing vested proprietary rights without compensation amounted to an arbitrary exercise of legislative power and imposed an unreasonable burden on landowners who had lawfully possessed those rights for decades.
In addition to declaring the legislation unconstitutional, the High Court directed the State Government to refund the royalty amounts collected from the appellants within three months. This direction provides immediate financial relief to the affected landowners and underscores the Court’s view that collections made under an unconstitutional statute cannot be retained by the State.
The judgment is likely to assume considerable significance beyond Kerala. Across India, disputes frequently arise over the relationship between private ownership of land, ownership of minerals beneath the surface, and the regulatory authority of State Governments. The ruling reiterates that although governments may regulate mineral extraction in the public interest, they cannot extinguish vested proprietary rights through legislation without adhering to constitutional safeguards governing compulsory acquisition of property.
Legal experts believe the decision strengthens the evolving jurisprudence on Article 300A, under which courts have increasingly emphasised that the constitutional right to property, though no longer a fundamental right, continues to protect citizens against arbitrary State action. The judgment is expected to influence future litigation involving land acquisition, mineral rights, natural resources and compensation, while also prompting governments to ensure that legislation affecting private property complies with constitutional requirements of fairness, due process and just compensation.
