Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or on the Fault of Public Authorities

Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam.

Contents in a Nutshell

1. Article 300A is a constitutional safeguard against unlawful State action against Right to Property of citizens. That is, Article 300A is a limitation on the State’s power of Eminent Domain.
- The Supreme Court of India also declared the Right to Property a ‘Human Right’ and applied it in private disputes.
2. There being a Constitutional Guarantee protecting property against arbitrary State action, there will be –
- (i) No limitation for seeking corrections to revenue entries (unless specific statutory bar).
- (ii) Right to property cannot be taken away on technical grounds of delay, especially when the fault lies with the authorities.

The March of Law

Right to property was a Fundamental Right till 1978.
Its status is reduced to a Constitutional right.
It was done by the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978).
Article 300A reads – ‘No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law’.
Article 300A is held to be an effective constitutional safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of property by State action.
Through judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has recognised the right to property as a human right.
Thus, today, the right to property in India is simultaneously a constitutional right and a human right, though no longer a fundamental right.
No Limitation for Seeking Corrections To Revenue Entries (unless specific statutory bar**) for the following:
- Article 300A ensures an effective constitutional safeguard.
- Mutation does not establish title.
- The power to expunge forged or manipulated revenue entries is not subject to general limitation periods.
- Mutation is for fiscal purposes; ‘title’ is a matter for the determination of the civil court.
  - **Note: 1. Only a few States in India enacted provisions in the ‘revenue legislation’ prescribing ‘limitation’ in this regard.
  - 2. Even if there are jurisdictional or otherwise limitation for the Revenue Authorities to order correction of revenue entries, proper civil courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit regarding the declaration of rights, there being a constitutional guarantee to the property (Article 300A) one legally holds.
  - In such a case, a declaration of title may not be necessary, and even if it is sought, it may not deter the court from giving relief on the ground of delay – under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.

The Constitution as Enacted in 1950

Under the Constitution as originally enacted in 1950, the right to property was guaranteed by two provisions.

Article 19(1)(f) conferred upon every citizen the fundamental right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
Article 31 protected persons against deprivation of property except by authority of law and, in specified circumstances, upon payment of compensation.

These provisions enabled citizens to approach the Supreme Court directly under Article 32 for enforcement of their property rights.

Right To Property – Subject of Constitutional and Political Debate

However, the right to property soon became the subject of intense constitutional and political debate. Land reform legislation enacted by the States, intended to abolish intermediaries and redistribute agricultural land, frequently came into conflict with these constitutional guarantees. A series of constitutional amendments and judicial decisions followed, reflecting the continuing tension between individual property rights and the State’s socio-economic objectives.

The matter was finally settled by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. This Amendment repealed Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, thereby removing the right to property from the list of Fundamental Rights. Simultaneously, a new provision—Article 300A—(No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law) was inserted into Part XII of the Constitution.

Consequence of New Provision—Article 300A

The consequence is significant. The right to property is no longer enforceable as a Fundamental Right under Article 32. Instead, the challenge lies before the High Courts under Article 226 or before other competent civil or revenue courts.

The expression “authority of law” in Article 300A is not an empty formality. The law authorising deprivation must itself satisfy constitutional requirements. It must be validly enacted by a competent legislature, must not be arbitrary or illusory, and must conform to other constitutional limitations, particularly Articles 14 and 21.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised – though Article 300A does not restore the status of property as a Fundamental Right, it nevertheless embodies an important constitutional guarantee.

“Constitutional Balance cannot be Upset“

In State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471, it is laid down as follows:

“8. First, what are the facts? A grain market was the public purpose for which government wanted land to be acquired. Perfectly valid. Which land was to be taken? This power to select is left to the responsible discretion of government under the Act, subject to Articles 14, 19 and 31 (then). The court is handcuffed in this jurisdiction and cannot raise its hand against what it thinks is a foolish choice. Wisdom in administrative action is the property of the executive and judicial circumspection keeps the court lock-jawed save where power has been polluted by oblique ends or is otherwise void on well-established grounds. The constitutional balance cannot be upset.”

No doubt, this “constitutional balance” continues under Article 300A.

Art. 300A Ensures – State Acts Only under Authority of Law

Accordingly, while the constitutional status of the right to property has been downgraded since 1978, its protection has not been abolished. Article 300A continues to ensure that the State acts only under the authority of law and within the limits imposed by the Constitution whenever it seeks to deprive a person of property.

The following are the most important decisions on Article 300A:

1. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, (1995) Supp (1) SCC 596	One of the earliest leading cases. The Court held that Article 300A protects property from deprivation except by authority of law. Executive action alone cannot deprive a person of property.
2. Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1982) 1 SCC 39	Even after deletion of Article 31, the State cannot interfere with private property without legal authority. Every deprivation must be supported by law.
3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627	Though concerning land acquisition, the Court stressed that deprivation of property must strictly comply with statutory procedure and constitutional safeguards.
4. Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 9 SCC 354	Property is still a constitutional and human right. The State must strictly comply with statutory requirements before depriving a person of property.
5. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1	The leading Constitution Bench decision on Article 300A. The Court held that Article 300A is not a mere formality. The law authorising deprivation must be just, non-arbitrary and serve a public purpose. Though compensation is not expressly guaranteed, wholly illusory compensation may render the law unconstitutional.
6. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404	The Court described the right to property as a human right as well as a constitutional right and strongly criticised arbitrary attempts by the State to appropriate private property through adverse possession.
7. Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, (2013) 1 SCC 353	The State cannot occupy private land for decades without acquisition or compensation. Such conduct violates Article 300A.
8. Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569	One of the strongest modern decisions. The Court held that forcible possession of private land without acquisition proceedings or compensation is unconstitutional and violates Article 300A. Property remains both a constitutional and a human right.
9. Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 9 SCC 356	The Government cannot simply record private land as public property in revenue records without following due process. Article 300A requires authority of law.
10. B.K. Ravichandra v. Union of India, (2021) 2 SCC 401	The Court reaffirmed that Article 300A protects individuals against arbitrary deprivation of property and that due process prescribed by law must be observed.
11. Dharnidhar Mishra v. State of Bihar, (2024) 10 SCC 605.	Although the right to property is ceased to be a fundamental right, it continues to be a human right in a welfare state, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Accordingly, the State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law.
12. Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, (2024) 10 SCC 533	Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569: Referred to.
13. The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S.V. Global Mill Limited. (2026) INSC 138.	Article 300A of the Constitution reflects the constitutional commitment to the rule of law by ensuring that deprivation of property cannot occur arbitrarily and must be backed by valid law.

Right to Property, a Human Right – Also Applied in Private Civil Disputes

The Supreme Court has not confined the Constitutional and Human Right status of the right to property to cases of State acquisition under Article 300A. It has also invoked those principles while adjudicating private civil disputes where one private party seeks to defeat or diminish another’s proprietary (adverse possession and pre-emption) rights through a statutory or common-law claim. Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram is the clearest illustration of this principle. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404, extends the same approach in the context of adverse possession.

In Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram, (2007) 10 SCC 448, the Supreme Court considered the impact of the Constitutional and Human Right status of the right to property on a private claim of pre-emption. The Court observed as under:

“…. To hold property is a constitutional right in terms of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. It is also a human right. Right to hold property, therefore, cannot be taken away except in accordance with the provisions of a statute. If a superior right to hold a property is claimed, the procedures therefor must be complied with. The conditions precedent therefor must be satisfied. Even otherwise, the right of pre-emption is a very weak right, although it is a statutory right. The Court, while granting a relief in favour of a preemptor, must bear it in mind about the character of the right, vis-à-vis the Constitutional and human right of the owner thereof.

Thus, the Supreme Court applied the constitutional and human-right character of the right to property even in resolving competing claims between private parties.

CBI has No Authority to issue directions on Immovable Property of Accused

In Shaibin Kaippenchery @ Shaibin Ashraf v. Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a question came before the High Court of Kerala, 2026 KER 39440 (P. V. Balakrishnan, J.) – whether the CBI possesses the legal authority to issue directions preventing all transactions relating to the immovable properties of an accused person to prevent them from escaping the law. The court found that the respondent failed to place any provision of law authorising such a restriction, and the court observed that even if an individual is considered a hardcore criminal, it does not justify denying the constitutional right to enjoy property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. (See also: Haris v. Union of India, 2026 KER 3787.)

Inaction of Employer Cannot Defeat a Constitutional Right

In Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, 2026 3 BBCJ(SC) 71; 2026 4 BLJ(SC) 29; 2026 INSC 612, it is found that the pension is a hard-earned benefit amassed by an employee by virtue of long and continuous service and is in the nature of “property” within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution. Once pension is recognised as a constitutional right in the nature of property, it cannot be taken away except by authority of law. A statutory right cannot be rendered illusory on account of inaction of the employer, and such inaction cannot defeat or deny a constitutional right.

The Following Decisions Say – the Govt. has Similar Rights over Public Properrty

1. State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 —	This is a strong judgment on the protection of Government property. Government property cannot be grabbed. The Court emphasised that public property belongs to the people and Government officials are under a constitutional duty to preserve it. The Court said that public property is held by the Government as a trustee for the people, and it must protect such property against encroachers. However, the Court also made it equally important – “The Government, including all instrumentalities of the State, cannot be permitted to perfect title over private property by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession.” This case is often cited both: to protect private property against the State; and to emphasise the Government’s duty to safeguard public property.
2. Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 —	Protection of village common and Government land This is a landmark judgment. The Supreme Court directed all State Governments to remove encroachments from Gram Sabha, Panchayat, and other public lands. The Court observed – public lands belong to the community; courts should not encourage regularisation of illegal occupations; Government authorities are under a legal duty to recover public lands from encroachers. The Court remarked that such lands are meant for the benefit of the entire village community and Public land cannot be allowed to be appropriated by private persons.
3. Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2006) 3 SCC 549	Public trust doctrine, imposes a fiduciary obligation oon the Government to preserve it. The Court reiterated that: lakes, parks, Government lands, public resources are held by the State as trustee for the public. Government has an affirmative constitutional duty to preserve such properties and cannot permit their illegal occupation.
4. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496	The Court ordered restoration of village pond land illegally allotted to private persons. It held that community lands must be protected and restored because they serve public purposes.
5. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, (1999) 6 SCC 464	The Court held that public property cannot be diverted or alienated contrary to law. Municipal authorities hold public property in trust for the public and cannot deal with it as if it were private property. This decision applies the public trust doctrine to Government-owned land.

Public Trust Doctrine imposes Limits and Obligations

In Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, (2009) 3 SCC 571, our Apex Court held as under:

“53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof.
54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations….”

Erroneous Revenue Entries will not defeat rights under Art. 300-A

The Bombay High Court (Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J.), Aurangabad Bench, in Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra, 2026:BHC-AUG:20436, quashed and set aside the Order of the Minister upholding the property rights of the landowners, under Article 300A of the Constitution. It held to the following effect:

Erroneous revenue entries that led to a reduction in area will not defeat the rights of the landowners, under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
The revenue authorities, being custodians of the record, are required to explain how such reduction occurred. The petitioner cannot be blamed for incorrect entries maintained by the authorities.
A legal-constitutional right cannot be taken away on technical grounds of delay when the fault lies with the authorities.
There will be no specific period of limitation for seeking corrections to such wrong entries. (The failure of authorities to issue statutory notices often prevents landowners from discovering errors in real-time.)

Read also:

Rama S/o Gunda Malkapure v. The State of Maharashtra held -Property Rights Cannot be Taken Away on Technical Grounds of Delay

No Limitation for Seeking Corrections To Revenue Entries

The Bombay High Court (Rama v. The State of Maharashtra) pointed out that no specific period of limitation is stated either in the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 or in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Therefore not bars for an an owner for seeking corrections to such entries. It was also found that the failure of authorities to issue statutory notices often prevents landowners from discovering errors in real-time.

Title Deed Lost and Certified Copy Unavailable: The Law Does Not Leave the Owner Without a Remedy

Other Forms of Secondary Evidence Admissible Even if Regn. Copy Destroyed: The Madras High Court recognised that where both the original title deed and the registration copy maintained by the registering authority have perished, the law does not fail merely because a certified copy cannot be produced. In Kottaichamy v. Kannan (25 April, 2008 in S.A. (MD) No. 478 of 2007), P. R. Shivakumar, J., it is held as under:

“When the original is shown to be destroyed or lost and the registration copy of the document available with the registering authority is also said to be destroyed, then it is quite justifiable that in such cases other form of secondary evidence also can be permitted in line with the provision found in Section 65 of Act.”

Non-availability of Certified Copy – Deterioration of Registration Record

In R. Parameswaran Pillai v. The Special Deputy Collector LA (NH) & Competent Authority, 2022 KER 74351, the writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondent to release the compensation amounts due to the petitioner as part of the land acquisition proceedings. The contention of the petitioner is that the partition deed No.2065 of the year 1090 M.E. registered before the Kazhakootam Sub-Registrar Office was irretrievably lost, and certified copy of the document was also not issued by the Sub-Registrar as the original of the same has deteriorated.

In Sree Narayana Dharma Sangham Trust v. Surendranath, 2022 (6) KHC 33 : 2022 (4) KLJ 158, the Kerala High Court (A. Badharudeen, J.) held that where the original document has become unavailable and the Sub-Registrar reports that the document has deteriorated to such an extent that no certified copy can be issued, the case falls within Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act and secondary evidence is admissible. It is held as under:

“Sub section (c) of Section 65 deals with the situation when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its own contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time. In the given facts of this case, the petitioner attempted to get an authenticated copy of the settlement deed from the Sub Registrar concerned and the said attempt failed as it was reported that the document was torn akin to a situation as near to ‘destruction’ of the document mentioned in sub-section (c) of Section 65 and as such secondary evidence is permissible in the case of the document in question.”

Title May Be Established by Other Legally Admissible Evidence

The High Court of Kerala, in R. Parameswaran Pillai v. The Special Deputy Collector LA (NH) & Competent Authority (T. R. Ravi, J.), directed the respondent officials to consider the claim of the petitioner based on the documents like the tax receipts, possession certificates, the extract from the Basic Tax Register, etc., in the absence of the title deed and the copy of the paper publication effected by the petitioner regarding the loss of the document. Although the Court did not expressly formulate a rule of evidence, its directions clearly indicate that, in the absence of the original title deed and its certified copy, the claimant’s title may be established by other legally admissible evidence such as the available revenue records and other contemporaneous materials.

Illustrative Modes of Proving Title in the Absence of the Title Deed

A title deed is evidence or a legal expression of ownership. Or, it represents ownership. But it does not represent unfailing ownership by itself. The ownership is a bundle of rights (possession, control, exclusion, enjoyment, and disposition). Therefore, depending upon the facts of the case, in the Absence of the Title Deed, ownership may be established by one or more of the following:

long and continuous possession;
origin of title of neighbouring or similarly situated lands;
enactments concerning the origin of title;
mutation and revenue records (including the Basic Tax Register and possession certificates);
land tax receipts;
admissions made by the opposite party;
recitals in subsequent deeds and connected documents;
reliable contemporaneous writings and public records;
admissible secondary evidence, including oral evidence of the contents of the lost document where legally permissible;
boundary descriptions contained in neighbouring title deeds or survey records; and
other surrounding circumstances relevant to the ownership and identity of the property.

Loss of the Title Deed Does Not Extinguish Ownership

A title deed is not the source of ownership; it is evidence of ownership. The right to property exists independently of the document by which it is ordinarily proved. That is, the title to immovable property does not reside in the title deed; the deed is only the best evidence of title. Accordingly, the accidental loss of the original deed, or the inability to obtain a certified copy owing to the deterioration or destruction of the registration records, does not extinguish ownership. Once the foundational facts regarding the loss or destruction of the document are satisfactorily established, the law permits proof by secondary and other legally admissible evidence. The owner is therefore not left remediless.

Constitutional Perspective

To hold otherwise would mean that the accidental destruction of a document—or the deterioration of public records maintained by the State—would itself extinguish proprietary rights. Such a consequence would be wholly inconsistent with the law of evidence, the law relating to declaration of title, and the constitutional protection of property under Article 300A.

Fraudulent Revenue Entries can be Expunged

In Dr. Kashmir Singh v. Board of Revenue, Lko. Thru. Chairman,2026 AHC 38092, it is held that mutation entries are only fiscal records and do not establish property title. Fraudulent revenue entries can be expunged by authorities without being bound by general limitation periods, as fraud vitiates the transaction, and specialized revenue codes prevail over general limitation regulations.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Vivek Jain, J) in Anju Thakur v. General Public (WP No. 15190 of 2015) held on 18-11-2025 that for effecting mutation and correction of revenue entry, no limitation is prescribed under the Land Revenue Code for moving an application for record correction pursuant to a valid declaratory decree of a Civil Court.

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana (L.N. Mittal, J.) in Mange v Ramesh, 2011-4 RCR(Civ) 72, held that the court held that the civil court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit regarding declaration of rights of the plaintiffs in the suit land, despite the jurisdictional limitation to order correction of revenue entries.

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession:

Survey, Revenue Records, Mutation

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Specific Relief Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Natural Justice/Disciplinary Action

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

General Principles
Dedication and Vesting
Trustees and Management
Breach of Trust
- Breach of Trust and Removal of Trustees
Suits by or against Trusts
Law on Hindu Religious Endowments
Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques – General
- Legal Personality of Temples, Gurudwaras, Churches and Mosques
Constitutional Principles
Ayodhya and Sabarimala Disputes
General

Right to Property: A Constitutional and Human Right That Cannot Be Taken Away on Mere Technical Grounds of Delay or on the Fault of Public Authorities

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment Cancel reply