The law of property ordinarily presupposes the existence of an identifiable owner who possesses a bundle of enforceable rights, including its title. The concept of ownerless property challenges this assumption by raising the question that what happens when no person can establish a legally recognised proprietary claim. The very concept was first evolved in ancient Rome and afterwards spread throughout the Europe and Common Law Countries. From this concept of ownerless property today’s modern concept of bona vacantia, escheat, abandonment, unclaimed and lapse properties have been derived. Article 296 of the Constitution of India recognised acquisition of property by escheat, lapse or bona vacantia. However, ownerless property remains conceptually fragmented across property, succession, constitutional, corporate and administrative jurisprudence. This article examines the jurisprudential foundations of ownerless property, distinguishes bona vacantia from escheat and abandoned property, analyses the constitutional position under Article 296 and Article 300A, evaluates the role of the judiciary. Applying the Analytical Doctrinal Legal Research and using Primary and Secondary data sources it argues that the mere absence of a claim should not automatically be equated with absence of ownership. A legally regulated determination of ownerlessness, accompanied by procedural safeguards and mechanisms for restoration to subsequently established owners, is necessary to reconcile State sovereignty with private property rights.