Table of Contents

The following landmark judgments explain the scope of the Right to Property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. These decisions clarify the legal protection available against deprivation of property, compensation, eminent domain, and the constitutional limitations on the State's power over private property.

1. Delhi Airtech Service (P) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2011) 9 SCC 354)

Held: It was held that Right to acquire, hold and dispose of the property continues to be a legal or constitutional right that no person can be deprived of his property save and except by and in accordance with law. It is to be noted that right to property has ceased to be a fundamental right under the Constitution of India.

2. Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1995 SC 142)

Held: It was held that Right to property is not the basic feature of the Constitution.

3. K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2011 SC 3430)

Held: Supreme Court held that right to get compensation in case of deprivation of property is inherent in Article 300-A.

4. Mahender Pal and others v. State of Haryana and others (AIR 2009 SC 3220)

Held: It was held that the State, while exercising its power of eminent domain, can deprive a person of their property rights only if the acquisition serves a public purpose and fair compensation is provided for the land taken.

5. Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2020 SC 4709)

Held: It was held that as a welfare State, the government cannot claim adverse possession, a doctrine that enables a trespasser—who may have committed a tort or even a crime—to acquire legal ownership of a property after 12 years. The State cannot use adverse possession to unjustly take over the property of its own citizens.