K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka 2011) 9 SCC 1 : Article 300A proclaims that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a person cannot be deprived of his property merely by an executive fiat, without any specific legal authority or without the support of law made by a competent legislature. The expression “property” in Article 300-A confined not to land alone, it includes intangibles like copyrights and other intellectual property and embraces every possible interest recognized by law.
Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State Maharashtra & Anr. (2020) 9 SCC 356, The right to property may not be a fundamental right any longer, but it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A and a human right
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013) 1 SCC 353 and: The right to property is now considered to be, not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. Though, it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right. Human rights are considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment etc. Now however, human rights are gaining an even greater multi-faceted dimension. The right to property is considered, very much to be a part of such new dimension.
State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar, (2011) 10 SCC 404 : The right to property is now considered to be not only a constitutional or statutory right, but also a human right. Human rights have been considered in the realm of individual rights such as right to shelter, livelihood, health, employment, etc. Human rights have gained a multi-faceted dimension
Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 672 : Having regard to the provisions contained in Article 300A of the Constitution, the State in exercise of its power of “eminent domain” may interfere with the right of property of a person by acquiring the same but the same must be for a public purpose and reasonable compensation therefor must be paid.”
P. N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy, (2008) 15 SCC 517 : The right of property is a human right as also a constitutional right, the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with law. Article 300A of the Constitution protects such right. The provisions of the Act seeking to divest such right, keeping in view of the provisions of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, must be strictly construed.
Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. V. State of U.P., (2011) 9 SCC 354 : It is accepted in every jurisprudence and by different political thinkers that some amount of property right is an indispensable safeguard against tyranny and economic oppression of the Government. Jefferson was of the view that liberty cannot long subsist without the support of property. “Property must be secured, else liberty cannot subsist” was the opinion of John Adams. Indeed the view that property itself is the seed-bed which must be conserved if other constructional values are to flourish, is the consensus among political thinkers and jurists.
Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596: In other words, Article 300A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There has to be no deprivation without any sanction of law.”
Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, K. T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, however, it continued to be a human right in a welfare State, and a Constitutional right under Article 300 A of the Constitution. Article 300 A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law”.