X Government acquired land belonging to Y for public purpose without the consent. Y challenged the acquisition made by the Government. Decide.

1. Whether X Government can acquire the property of Y ? YES

2. Whether consent of the Y is necessary ? NO

3. Whether the acquisition is Constitutionally valid? YES

Eminent Domain means compulsory acquisition of private property for public purpose. It is the power of a Government to take over the private property for public use. Many landlords think that their property rights are absolute under the law, but this is not correct. Government is the universal owner of the property as per the doctrine of eminent domain. The consent of the owner is not required for taking over the private property.

Shorn of all its incidents, the simple definition of the power to acquire compulsorily or of the term 'eminent domain' is the power of the sovereign to take property for public use without the owner's consent. The meaning of the power in its irreducible terms is,

(a) power to take

(b) without the owner's consent,

The concept of the public use as been inextricably related to an appropriate exercise of the power and is considered essential in any statement of its meaning.

Sudh Ram and Others Vs. Haryana State and Another, (2009) 15 SCR 287, In practice, this judgment limits the ability of landholders to share in the profits of development when their land has been taken without consent for those purposes.

State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1952 SC 264, the Supreme Court held that the State cannt take the property from its people unless it is required for a public purpose. The Court further said that every State has an inherent power and right to take and appropriate the private property. The Government has power to take property for public purpose without the owner's consent, upon making just compensation. This power is known as eminent domain.

Central Control Board Vs. Cannon Brewery Co. Ltd., ( 1919) A.C. 744, the power to take compulsorily raises by implication a right to payment.

Conclusion:

The acquisition is constitutionally valid because the Y's consent is not requiring for such acquisition.