Article 296 of the Costitution of India with Case law
🔹 Article 296 of the Constitution of India
Title: Property accruing by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia
🔸 Text of Article 296
Subject to any law made by Parliament, any property in the territory of India which:
(a) if this Constitution had not come into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty (the King) by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner,
shall, if it is property situated in a State, vest in the State, and
if it is situated in a Union territory, vest in the Union,
unless otherwise provided by any law made by Parliament.
🔸 Meaning of Key Terms
Escheat: Transfer of property to the State when a person dies intestate (without will or legal heirs).
Lapse: Similar to escheat, especially when grants/privileges are not claimed within a time frame.
Bona vacantia: Latin for "ownerless goods" — includes unclaimed property, property without heirs, etc.
🔸 Explanation of Article 296
Article 296 clarifies that:
✅ If any property in India has no legal owner due to death without heirs, or abandonment,
✅ That property will automatically vest in the Government:
| Location | Vests in |
|---|---|
| State | If the property is in a State |
| Union | If the property is in a Union Territory |
✅ Parliament may make laws to override this default rule.
🔸 Example Scenario
A person in Madhya Pradesh dies without legal heirs, and has land with no claimants.
➡ The land escheats to the State of Madhya Pradesh.
If it happens in Delhi (Union Territory), the land goes to the Union Government.
🔸 Relevant Case Laws on Article 296
🧑⚖️ State of Punjab v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1989 SC 558
Facts: Property of a deceased person with no heirs.
Held: The property rightfully passed to the State under Article 296 through escheat.
🧑⚖️ P. Leelavathi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 Kant 359
Issue: Claim over escheated property where distant relatives appeared later.
Held: Until a rightful heir is proven, property remains vested in the State under Article 296.
🧑⚖️ Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal Board of Sitapur, AIR 1965 SC 1923
Though pre-Constitution law was involved, the Court discussed how escheat works in Indian law.
Held: In the absence of rightful owner, the sovereign (now State/Union) becomes the owner.
🧑⚖️ Government of A.P. v. Yellaiah, (2002) 1 ALT 16
Concerned land without ownership documents.
Court reiterated the principle under Article 296 that ownerless property vests in the State, unless Parliament provides otherwise.
🔸 Comparison with Other Provisions
| Article | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Article 294 | Transfer of property and assets from British India to Indian governments |
| Article 295 | Succession of liabilities and obligations |
| Article 296 | Property without legal heirs goes to the State or Union |
| Indian Succession Act | Governs inheritance – failure to establish heir triggers Article 296 |
🔸 Conclusion
Article 296:
Prevents unclaimed property from remaining ownerless.
Provides a constitutional mechanism to deal with escheat and bona vacantia.
Ensures State/Union can utilize such property lawfully.
Is a residual property clause, rooted in principles of sovereign succession.
RELATED Blog
0 comments