Introduction: The Shifting Sands of Property Protection In this article we discuss briefly about the concept of property. ‘Property’ lies at the heart of both economic organization and individual liberty. Property represents not merely material possessions but also the social, legal, and moral recognition of ownership and control over tangible and intangible assets. In legal terms, property entails a bundle of rights – possession, enjoyment, and transfer that define the individual’s relationship with things and society’s recognition of those relationships. According to the Allianz Global Wealth Report 2025, in a study, covering nearly 60 countries, it was revealed that financial assets of Indian households rose strongly to 14.5% in 2024. The structure of Indian households’ financial savings has deposits, gold as well as instruments such as stocks, small savings and government bonds, and provident and pension funds. The structure of the assets primarily has deposits, gold and silver, immovable property (residential or commercial), market shares, and to some people, intellectual property. About 73% of households own a house, 50% own a two-wheeler and 8% own a car as property.1 This article hence, puts effort to address cardinal laws governing both movable and immovable property along with brief discourse on various aspects critical to their legal attributes. Dominion: Charting the Evolution of Property and Ownership In ancient India, private land ownership, including the right of alienation, was primarily held by the priestly elite and acquired through formal land grants. Over time, the notion of private land ownership evolved into a vital social institution based on confluence of factors, including economic challenges of the period and allocation of land to officers, religious institutions, and other entities in exchange for services rendered. Historically, the evolution of ‘property’ as a legal concept can be traced to the colonial imposition of English common law through the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Under the Constitution, the right to property was originally enshrined as a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution in 1950, protecting citizens against arbitrary deprivation of property. However, due to socio-economic reform needs especially in land reforms along with its redistribution, and conflicts between individual rights and public interest the right to property underwent several constitutional amendments. The most significant change occurred with the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, which removed the right to property from the list of fundamental rights and relegated it to a legal right under Article 300A. This shift empowered the state to acquire private property for public purposes under authority of law, while still protecting owners from arbitrary deprivation. The judicial system has also played a key role in interpreting and reshaping these rights through landmark rulings over the years, balancing development needs and individual rights. Case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala (1973), while primarily concerned with the scope of Parliament’s amending power under Article 368, significantly illuminated the constitutional dimension of property. Though the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right after the 44th Constitutional Amendment (1978), it remains a vital constitutional and statutory right under Article 300A. The judgment reaffirmed the notion that property, though modifiable by the state, cannot be arbitrarily deprived, and that the rule of law forms an immutable part of the basic structure of the Constitution. In international law, Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts that every individual has the right to own property and cannot be arbitrarily deprived of it. Notably, the right to property was excluded from the 1966 International Covenants, making it one of the few rights articulated in the UDHR not incorporated into legally binding treaties. Furthermore, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) (1965) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (1979) refer property rights, underlining the principle of non-discrimination. The Property Landscape Under Indian Law The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 establishes the framework for property transfer in India, using terms such as movable, immovable, tangible, and intangible to categorize property types. While these terms are not defined in this Act, they are clarified in the Registration Act, 1908. Movable and Immovable Property Unlike immovable property – such as land or buildings – movable property can be physically relocated from one place to another without altering their essential character or value. Tangible and Intangible Property Tangible property has a physical presence and economic value, including items like jewelry and vehicles. In contrast, intangible property, which lacks physical existence, includes securities, software, and intellectual property. Intellectual property arises from creative endeavors and are governed by laws that are distinct from general property law. Corporeal and Incorporeal Property Corporeal property has physical existence and can be owned such as jewellery and electronics unlike incorporeal property that consists of rights like copyrights and lease rights. Public and Private Property Public property is owned by the government for public use, including parks and hospitals, while private property is owned by individuals or entities for personal use, such as land and houses, trademarks, etc. Property in Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Chapter XVII, titled ‘Offences Against Property,’ encapsulated this protection through provisions on theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity, criminal misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust. However, the rise of the digital economy, cyber assets, and intangible property forms such as data, cryptocurrency, and intellectual content have blurred the traditional boundaries between ‘things’ and ‘information.’ This called for a re-examination of how ‘harm’ to property is conceptualized in modern law. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), enacted to replace the IPC, attempts to modernize this approach by reclassifying and redefining several offences against property. While maintaining the structural resemblance to Chapter XVII of the IPC, the BNS incorporates technological realities that increasingly define harm in the 21st century. Recognition under BNS of electronic data and digital assets Hacking (i.e., unauthorised access) Section 378 IPC is now Section 303 BNS, that provides – although digital data is intangible,…
