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.

• Section 2(6) of the Registration Act defines ‘Immovable Property’ to include land, buildings, hereditary allowances, and benefits from land.
• Section 2(9) defines ‘Movable Property’ to encompass items such as standing timber and personal assets.

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, it is considered movable property as it can be transferred, copied, or moved from one system to another. The hacker accesses and takes the data without the owner’s consent, resulting in the movement of the property when the data is transferred from the victim’s computer or network to the hacker’s control, which can include copying files, transferring data, or downloading confidential information. A hacker, by gaining unauthorized access to a computer system or network, dishonestly misappropriates or converts digital data for their use.

In Rafeeq Ahmad v. State of Karnataka (2015), the accused was involved in hacking into several online banking accounts to transfer funds illegally. The legal provisions included Section 66 of the IT Act for hacking with a computer system and Section 420 of the IPC (Section 318 of the BNS) for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The court convicted the accused under both sections, underscoring the severe consequences of hacking activities and financial fraud.

Denial-of-service attacks

In a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, the attacker intentionally floods a network or server with excessive requests, knowing that this action will likely disrupt services and cause harm. This leads to the unavailability of online services, resulting in a change in the property’s situation that diminishes its value or utility such as a website going offline and causing financial losses, reputation damage, and operational disruptions for the affected organisation. The targeted network, server, or online service is considered property, and the attack injures the utility and functionality of these digital properties and thus commits mischief (Section 324 of the BNS).

Phishing

Section 419 IPC/ Section 319 BNS ‘cheating by personation’ – A person is said to cheat by personation if he pretends to be another person, knowingly substitutes one person for another, or represents that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person is. Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to five years, with a fine, or with both.

Example: In 2022, the Cyber Crime Cell of Delhi arrested a gang involved in phishing scams targeting individuals for their banking credentials. The perpetrators were charged under Section 66D of the IT Act and relevant sections of the IPC, including Sections 419, 420, and 468, due to their fraudulent activities involving identity theft and deceit to obtain sensitive information.

Rise of Intangible Assets

Chit Funds

Chit Funds Act, 1982, is the primary regulatory framework for governing Chits. Despite regulatory efforts, chit fund fraud remains rampant and includes scams include scam where victims included small traders, homemakers etc. Amendments in 2019 modernised the provisions and allows video conferencing during chit draws, making the process more convenient and geographically inclusive.2

The Telangana government has pioneered blockchain adoption through the ChitMonks platform, which processes over 1,600 chit fund companies, 1.3 million subscribers, and more than 28,550 chit groups. This blockchain-based system creates an immutable audit trail, making it difficult for fraudsters to manipulate records. State registrars have also implemented online systems for chit fund registration and monitoring, enhancing transparency and reducing paperwork.3

Insurance

India’s insurance sector has made significant progress in front-end digitization while struggling with backend modernization. The sector has achieved improved user experience through e-KYC, Aadhaar authentication, and payment APIsUsers can access a ‘Bima Pehchaan’ ID linked with Aadhaar or PAN, enabling seamless policy comparison, purchase, renewal, and claims tracking.4

However, digitization has created new vulnerabilities. Fraudsters are increasingly exploiting Aadhaar-linked identity systems to file bogus insurance claims. Insurance fraud is estimated at 10-15% of total claims in India. To combat these emerging threats, IRDAI released the Insurance Fraud Monitoring Framework Guidelines, 2025, effective from April 1, 2026. The new framework mandates a board-approved Anti-Fraud Policy from all insurers, establishes dedicated Fraud Monitoring Units (FMU) headed by key management personnel, and requires zero-tolerance approaches toward fraud. The framework also mandates insurers to share fraud data with the Insurance Information Bureau (IIB), which maintains a “caution repository” of blacklisted entities.5

DMAT

DMAT accounts have made securities trading faster, safer, and more accessible. The push towards T+1 settlement (transaction day + 1) is more easily implemented with fully digitalized accounts, improving liquidity for investors.6

Sharekhan pioneered the complete digitalization of Demat account opening by eliminating physical stamp paper requirements. Through integration with eMudhra’s digital signature platform and NeSL’s Digital Document Execution (DDE) system, customers can now open accounts entirely through digital means, with real-time digital e-stamp certificates obtained through APIs with state governments. SEBI has taken enforcement action against 886 entities between April 2024 and June 2025 for involvement in fraudulent and unfair trade practices in securities markets, covering violations under the SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003. SEBI’s 2025 anti-fraud initiative specifically targets pump-and-dump schemes, using AI surveillance and social media tracking to monitor fraudulent stock promotions, particularly on platforms like Telegram and WhatsApp.7

CRYPTO

India’s approach to cryptocurrency has shifted from near-prohibition to pragmatic regulation. Following a Supreme Court judgment striking down the RBI’s 2018 banking ban, the government introduced a taxation framework in 2022 without granting full legal recognition. Key measures include:

• A 30% flat tax on cryptocurrency gains (Section 115BBH)
• 1% Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on transfers above ₹50,000 annually
• Mandatory reporting requirements for companies dealing in cryptocurrencies.8

In March 2023, a pivotal development occurred – the government classified Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDASPs) as ‘reporting entities’ under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. This mandated registration with the Financial Intelligence Unit-India (FIU-IND) for all cryptocurrency exchanges and wallet providers. In November 2025, a landmark judgment by the Madras High Court recognized cryptocurrency as ‘property’ under Indian law, defining digital assets as ‘virtual digital assets’ under Section 2(47A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This ruling provides much-needed legal clarity for inheritance, tax classification, bankruptcy proceedings, and contract enforcement related to digital assets.9

Around ₹623.63 crore taken from nearly 2,872 cybercrime victims is believed to have passed through crypto platforms, with individual exchanges handling amounts ranging from ₹360 crore to ₹6 crore.10. Police successfully recovered more than ₹60 lakh in cryptocurrency, a rare feat in India’s crypto fraud ecosystem.11 The FIU-IND has emerged as a de-facto regulator in the absence of comprehensive legislative framework. However, India faces significant regulatory gaps – there is no statutory recognition of cryptocurrencies as legal tender or securities, no unified regulator solely responsible for the crypto sector, and enforcement relies heavily on AML/ CFT rules rather than investor protection frameworks. The current framework creates compliance uncertainty, valuation ambiguity, and tracking difficulties, particularly for peer-to-peer and cross-border transfers.12

GOLD AND SILVER

Digital gold investment has also emerged as a major trend in India. In 2024 alone, India saw over $18 billion in gold investments, with approximately 10% coming from digital gold platforms. The Indian digital gold market is predicted to reach $100 billion by 2025. Digital gold platforms like Paytm Gold, PhonePe Gold, Google Pay Gold, Augmont, and MMTC-PAMP allow investments starting from as little as ₹1, offering 24/7 trading, instant liquidity, transparent pricing, and secure vault storage. Gold prices in India have advanced 34% in 2025, trading between ₹1,02,000 and ₹1,05,000 per 10 grams. Silver has gained over 42%, touching ₹1,23,000 per kilogram in the domestic spot market.

The World Gold Council launched a major blockchain initiative to create a transparent, immutable database tracking gold from mine to market, addressing concerns that 50% of people don’t trust gold and 60% don’t understand how to invest safely. Tokenized gold and silver (such as PAX Gold and Digix tokens) trade on cryptocurrency exchanges with 24/7 availability, offer fractional ownership starting from as little as 1 gram, and provide blockchain-verified transparency through proof-of-reserves and independent audits.13

Indian blockchain initiatives for gold include private sector innovations like Goldstar Jewels, which uses blockchain to maintain tamper-proof transaction records and reduce counterfeiting. Blockchain could reduce gold transaction costs by up to 30%. However, tokenization also introduces new risks – the reliance on custodians to hold physical backing, potential smart contract vulnerabilities, and regulatory uncertainty around the legal status of tokenized assets.14

Fractional Property Ownership

Fractional ownership constitutes a collaborative investment model whereby groups of investors pool their resources to acquire high-value assets. This approach alleviates the financial burden on any single investor and provides an opportunity to generate returns on the investment.

The assets involved can vary widely, encompassing commercial properties, residential properties, aircraft, yachts, and warehouses. Investors share the associated income and expenses in proportion to their respective contributions.

In India, fractional real estate investment is regulated by both the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). These regulatory bodies are committed to ensuring transparency, safeguarding investor interests, and fostering a structured real estate investment environment. Developers and prominent firms are required to obtain RERA approval prior to launching new projects, reinforcing the integrity of the market.

Digitalization Of Land Records, Prop-tech and Associated Frauds

The introduction of e-registration, digital signatures, online land databases, and blockchain-based verification has modernized traditional processes, enhancing transparency, efficiency, and accessibility in property dealings.

Initiatives such as the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP) have played a crucial role in transforming the land governance system that has reduced manual errors and minimized fraudulent practices, including forgery, duplication of ownership, and disputes over title or possession. However, the growing reliance on digital platforms raise legitimate concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties.

The digitalization of land records has significantly improved efficiency, accessibility, and accuracy, but, it has also brought forth complex legal, ethical, and technological challenges requiring a robust regulatory framework that safeguards individual privacy, enforces data protection, and ensures responsible use of technology is essential to sustain public confidence. More than 70% of homebuyers in 2023 itself used digital channels for property discovery, digital valuation models to analyze market trends, and infrastructure proximity to determine fair pricing and number of such homebuyers are only increasing. The increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) in property verification, digital home loans and dealer platforms has further complicated the landscape. Algorithms processing vast amounts of personal and transactional data may inadvertently perpetuate biases, discrimination, or lack of accountability.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules 2025 on November 13, 2025 imposing stringent obligations on Data Fiduciaries to protect personal data through multiple mechanisms. Failure to implement reasonable security safeguards leading to a data breach can result in penalties up to ₹250 crore.

Parallel to data protection reforms, India has achieved remarkable progress in digitizing land records through the Digital India Land Records Modernization Program (DILRMP). As of 2024, approximately 98.5% of rural land records have been digitized, covering over 6.26 lakh villages. Digitization of cadastral maps has reached 68.02% at the national level, and 87% of Sub-registrar offices have been integrated with land records. The introduction of RERA portals, digital registries, and online grievance systems has made project data easily accessible to buyers and have brought some respite to home buyer disputes.

Recognizing persistent vulnerabilities in the current system, the Supreme Court of India on November 6, 2025, directed the Law Commission to examine integrating blockchain with existing property laws including the Transfer of Property Act 1882, Registration Act 1908, and notably, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.15

State-Level Initiatives and Challenges:

• Uttar Pradesh: Has recently approved a major initiative valued at ₹121 crore to modernize its system of land records. The project entails the digitization of foundational records – such as khasra (parcel records), khatauni (ownership records), and cadastral maps. A digital data bank is being established, complemented by the modernization of record rooms to enhance archival standards and accessibility.16 Similarly, Kerala is too in the process of proposing significant changes to its land laws.
• Haryana: Fraudsters accessed the jamabandi.nic.in website, downloaded registration sale deeds by filling in basic information, copied thumb impressions onto butter paper, and created duplicate silicon thumbs to perpetrate financial fraud17 by withdrawing money from Aadhaar-linked bank accounts through AEPS (Aadhaar Enabled Payment System) devices. In 2023, biometric cloning accounted for 11% of all financial cybercrimes, with a significant portion originating from exploiting publicly accessible land records containing biometric data.18
• Uttarakhand: In 2025, passed an amendment to the Zamindari Abolition & Land Reform Act (1950) to introduce greater regulatory oversight of land purchases within the state, which is viewed as a means to curb unauthorized land grabbing and ensure lawful transactions.19
• Telangana: The government enacted the Bhu Bharati (Record of Rights in Land) Bill, 2024, marking an overhaul of its land records system. This new law replaces the earlier Dharani portal and embeds several technical and process innovations. Notable features include the introduction of ‘Bhudhaar’– an 11-digit unique identifier assigned to every land parcel – which is directly linked to ownership data.20

The digitalization of land records signifies a fundamental transformation but is not without challenges. Issues such as data privacy and security risks, jurisdictional ambiguities, and digital exclusion of marginalized communities pose serious concerns that must be addressed through strong legal safeguards, coordinated policymaking, and comprehensive public awareness

Conclusion

Recent amendments to these laws emerge as a commendable legislative endeavour, showcasing a proactive response to the evolving socio-legal structure in India. By addressing crucial aspects such as gender neutrality, age disparities, punishment reform, sensitive language use, and the creation of new offenses, laws like BNS demonstrate a commitment to modernizing the justice system, which has resulted in redefining the laws related to property as well.

The evolving jurisprudence globally suggests a trend towards recognition of these properties and how individuals can be protected in each case against frauds and scams. A clear statutory recognition perhaps through a Digital Assets Act – could settle ambiguity and align India with global legal standards.

---

---

Read More