The right to property under Article 300A is a constitutional right, not a fundamental right. Discuss its implications for state action in land acquisition, registration, and mutation, with reference to recent judicial pronouncements.

Q. The right to property under Article 300A is a constitutional right, not a fundamental right. Discuss its implications for state action in land acquisition, registration, and mutation, with reference to recent judicial pronouncements. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

The 44th Constitutional Amendment, 1978 deleted Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 and relocated property to Article 300A — "no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law" [1]. Downgraded in remedy, it nonetheless remains a substantive constitutional limit on arbitrary state action.

Changed nature of the right - Loss of fundamental status removes the direct Article 32 remedy; deprivation is tested for legality and non-arbitrariness, not for reasonableness of restriction [1]. - Courts have progressively read Article 300A as a constitutional and human right, requiring that any executive deprivation trace back to a valid statute [2].

Land acquisition - The state retains eminent domain, but only through a law — hence compulsory acquisition must follow statutory procedure, fair compensation and rehabilitation, not executive fiat [1]. - Subordinate rules or notifications that curtail property rights beyond their parent Act are liable to be quashed [2].

Registration - In Samiullah v. State of Bihar (2025), the Supreme Court struck down sub-rules of the Bihar Registration Rules that made proof of mutation a precondition for registering sale deeds, holding them ultra vires Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908, arbitrary, and violative of Article 300A [2][3]. - The Court clarified that registration concerns documents, not titles — it gives public notice, creating only presumptive ownership [3][4].

Mutation - Mutation (dakhil-kharij) is an administrative revenue-record update governed by separate state law; it confers no ownership and cannot be imported into registration [2][4]. - Weak records deepen the problem: mutation is computerised in roughly half of villages, and land disputes account for around two-thirds of pending civil cases [4].

Article 300A thus survives as a shield of legality rather than a fundamental guarantee. The durable answer lies in moving from presumptive to conclusive titling with state indemnity, backed by integrated registration–revenue records under DILRMP — a transition Andhra Pradesh's 2024 repeal of its Land Titling Act shows must be built on careful consultation [5].

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Constitution of India — India Code — Article 300A; 44th Amendment; deprivation only by authority of law 2. Samiullah v. State of Bihar & Ors., Supreme Court of India (7 November 2025) — Bihar registration sub-rules held ultra vires and violative of Article 300A; registration vs mutation distinction 3. The Registration Act, 1908 — India Code — Section 69 rule-making power; registration as public notice of documents 4. Land Records and Titles in India — PRS Legislative Research — presumptive title; mutation not proof of ownership; land-records and litigation data 5. The Andhra Pradesh Land Titling Repeal Act, 2024 (Act 11 of 2024) — PRS — rollback of conclusive titling legislation