How the Indian Constitution defines Right to Property?

The Constitution of India does not distinguish the right of property as the fundamental right. In 1977, the 44th amendment wiped out the right to get, hold and discard property as a fundamental right. On the other hand, in an alternate part of the Constitution, article 300 (A) was embedded to avow that no individual should be denied of his property spared by the power of law. The effect is that the right to property as an essential right is presently substituted as a statutory right.

The term property, in Indian contexts, conception and experiences has a completely different historical base than that of western countries. The notion of property in India has witnessed a hugely advanced exposure in the past 20 years, after the Govt. adopted the policy of hardcore liberalization.

As per the provisions described in Indian Constitution, the right to property is associated with the question of how the property and the pressures related to it, should be cared for and handled.

The tale of administrative control of the right to property started with the First Amendment Act, 1951 by which the Articles 31-A and 31-B were embedded into the Constitution. Article 31-A was presented by the Constitution- First Amendment Act, 1951 wherein the Parliament characterized ʺestateʺ and proceeded by further corrections to stretch out its importance to appreciate essentially the whole farming land in the country region including waste grounds, timberland terrains, terrains for pasture or sites of buildings and construction.

The after-effects of the short overview of the procurements of the Constitution and the accompanying recommendations are as follow:

(1) Every native has a basic right to gain, hold and discard the property.

(2) The state can make a law forcing sensible limitations on the said right out in the open investment.

(3) The said limitations, in specific situations, may add up to hardship of the said right.

(4) Whether a limitation forced by law on a central right is sensible and openly investment or not, is a justifiable issue.

(5) The state can by law, deny an individual of his property if the said law adds up to sensible limitation in broad daylight in the light of Article 19(5).

(6) The state can procure or demand the property of an individual for an open reason in the wake of paying the value.

(7) Laws of agrarian change denying or confining the rights in an ʺestateʺ the said articulation has been characterized to incorporate basically every rural land in a village cannot be addressed on the ground that they have made any kind of encroachment.