This article examines the constitutional evolution and contemporary status of the right to property in India, arguing that it functions as a conditional constitutional guarantee rather than an absolute right. It traces the historical shift from Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 to Article 300A following the 44th Constitutional Amendment, highlighting how legislative reforms, judicial interpretation, and the doctrine of eminent domain have progressively subordinated private ownership to public purpose, social welfare, and developmental priorities. The study analyses major constitutional cases, including Golak Nath, Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills, K.T. Plantation, Vidya Devi, and other recent decisions discussed in the article, to show that judicial protection now focuses primarily on lawful procedure, non-arbitrariness, compensation, and fairness rather than an unrestricted right to retain property. It also evaluates the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and considers the interaction of property rights with Articles 14 and 21, Directive Principles, infrastructure development, environmental protection, and emerging forms of digital property. Through comparative reference to the United States, United Kingdom, and South Africa, the article concludes that India follows a pragmatic model in which ownership is protected, but remains subject to constitutionally valid public-interest limitations and state acquisition.