Constitution of India · Part XII: Finance, Property, Contracts and Suits · Obligations and suits
Article 296: Property accruing by escheat or lapse or as bona vacantia
In plain words
Property in India that would earlier have gone to His Majesty or a Ruler by escheat, lapse or as bona vacantia (having no rightful owner) now vests in the State where it is located, or otherwise in the Union. Property already held by a government at the time goes to the Union or State depending on what it was used for.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
Subject as hereinafter provided, any property in the territory of India which, if this Constitution had not come into operation, would have accrued to His Majesty or, as the case may be, to the Ruler of an Indian State by escheat or lapse, or as bona vacantia for want of a rightful owner, shall, if it is property situate in a State, vest in such State, and shall, in any other case, vest in the Union:
Provided that any property which at the date when it would have so accrued to His Majesty or to the Ruler of an Indian State was in the possession or under the control of the Government of India or the Government of a State shall, according as the purposes for which it was then used or held were purposes of the Union or of a State, vest in the Union or in that State.
Explanation.—In this article, the expressions “Ruler” and “Indian State” have the same meanings as in article 363.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the official text of the Constitution of India. As amended up to the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. Text as on 10 September 2026. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the article 296
-
Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Government of NCT & Anr.
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellants would be entitled to claim interest on delayed stamp duty refund, in the absence of a provision in the statute to that effect.
-
Lucknow Nagar Nigam & Others v. Kohli Brothers Colour Lab.
1) Whether statutory vesting of property termed as enemy property under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 amounts to expropriation which leads to change of its status inasmuch as its ownership is…
- Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of
- Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. Lrs. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
- M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. V. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Lord Northbook and Ors.
- State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Swanstone Multiplex Cinema (P) Ltd
- Allahabad and Ors. v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation
- Pierce Leslie & Co. Ltd. v. Violet Ouchterlony Wapshare and Others Vice Versa
- Commissioner of Income-Tax Bihar and Orissa v. Manager, Court of Wards Estate, Bettiah
- Tiie Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras and Another
- State of West Bengal v. Union of India