Depends upon how you define it. The universe is full of planets, so "habitable surface of a planet with an ideal distance to the Sun" is mind-boggingly scarce, but "planet surface" is ubiquitous.

And land can be created, reclaimed, etc., but it seems to happen at a rate slower than Bitcoin emission (for now). There are often waiting lists for such land, despite it often having a high price, whereas it's still easy to buy Bitcoin. So, the creation of one outpaces demand, but not the other.

As the human population declines, "land on Earth physically close to other humans" will explode in value, whereas "land on Earth physically far from other humans" will become nearly worthless, or only useful for extraction (not agriculture). This is the internal contradiction to a demographic decline.

We can already see that, with governments paying people to resettle abandoned areas, in Europe. That resettlement will only work, sustainably, if a group of humans moves in tandem. For instance, our village has eye-watering real estate prices and a growing, wealthy, and relatively-young population... but there's one about 30 minutes from here, that's basically a ghost town. Everyone from there, has moved here. Humans clump together.

It's complicated.