Difference in disposal of private property and socialist property
S j tubrazy
Owner of private property may deal with it in any manner he likes without causing injury to any one else. But the socialist or if that word is jarring to some, the community or further the public property has to be dealt with for public purpose and in public interest. The marked difference lies in this that while the owner of private property may have a number of considerations, which may permit him to dispose of his property for a song.
On the other hand, disposal of public property partakes the character of a trust in that in its disposal there should be nothing hanky panky and that it must be done at the best puce so that larger revenue coming into the coffers of the State administration would serve public purpose viz. the Welfare State may be able to expand its beneficent activities by the availability of larger funds.
This is subject to one important limitation that socialist property may be disposed at a price lower than the market price or even for a token price to achieve some defined constitutionally recognized public purpose. But where disposal is for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is under an obligation to secure the best market price available in a market economy.
An owner of private property need not auction it nor is he bound to dispose it of at a current market price. Factors such as personal attachment, or affility, kinship, empathy, religious sentiment or limiting the choice, to whom he may be willing to sell, may permit him to sell the property at a song and without demur. A welfare State as the owner of the public property has no such freedom while disposing of the public property.
A welfare State exists for the largest good of the largest number more so when it proclaims to be a socialist State dedicated to eradication of poverty. All its attempt must be to obtain the best available price while disposing of its property because the greater the revenue, the welfare activities will get a fillip and shot in the arm. Financial constraint may weaken the tempo of activities. Such an approach serves the larger public purpose of expanding welfare activities primarily for which the Constitution envisages the setting up of a welfare State.