Summary
Former owners sought regrant of land acquired for a dam under a State policy. The Court upheld refusal and held the regrant policy incompatible with Article14 and public-trust principles. It distinguished a lawful rehabilitation policy for persons rendered landless and permitted the State to frame one.
Issues
- Whether acquired land no longer required for its original purpose could be regranted under the challenged policy.
- What constitutional constraints governed disposal and possible rehabilitation policy.
Held
- Disposal of land vested in the State must comply with Article14 and the public-trust doctrine. An opinion that acquired land is no longer needed does not justify regrant to former owners under a policy lacking valid criteria. (¶¶ 3, 6, 8)
- The challenged regrant policy violated law and must not be implemented in future. Rehabilitation of displaced persons rendered landless stands on a different footing and may be addressed through an appropriate lawful policy. (¶ 6–7)
Result
Appeals disposed of without granting regrant. State directed not to give effect to the challenged policy in future, with liberty to frame a lawful rehabilitation policy for displaced landless persons within three months.