High CourtDivision Bench2017-12-01Appeals disposed of

Mansukhbhai Dhamjibhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 20919 of 2017

Neutral Citation:[2017] 12S.C.R.115

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment Date: 2017-12-01
Court Decision / Holding: The policy enabling re-grant of land vested in the State without valid criteria and without applying the doctrine of public trust is in violation of law and Article 14. If land acquired for public purpose is no longer needed, the State may transfer it, but disposal must be regulated by the public trust doctrine. The State is directed not to give effect to the re-grant policy in future and to frame a lawful policy for rehabilitation of displaced persons within three months. The disposal of property must be consistent with Article 14; the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Final Disposition: Appeals disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mansukhbhai Dhamjibhai Patel
Anr.

Respondents

State of Gujarat
Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Puneet Jain
• Christi Jain
• Priyal Jain
• Pratibha Jain

Counsels for Respondents

• Hemantika Wahi
• Jesal Wahi
• Puja Singh
• Shodhika Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

The case concerns land acquired in 1981 for the construction of a dam in Gujarat. In 2011, the appellants moved the High Court seeking release of the land, invoking a Government resolution (dated 31.08.2001) authorizing the re-grant of land considered no longer useful for public purpose. The High Court held that land acquired for a public purpose cannot be re-granted to the original owner, relying on precedents including V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, leave was granted to consider the validity of the policy enabling re-grant without clear criteria and without applying the doctrine of public trust in disposal of government land. The Court held that the policy is in violation of law and that disposal of land must be regulated by the public trust doctrine and Article 14 of the Constitution. It stated that if land acquired for public purpose is no longer needed, the State can transfer it, but not under an unlawful policy; rehabilitation of displaced persons should be addressed with a proper policy. The Court directed that the re-grant policy not be given effect to in the future and asked the State to frame an appropriate law-compliant policy within three months, affirming that disposal must be consistent with Article 14 and disposing of the appeals.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Doctrine of public trust

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the 2001 policy enabling re-grant of land vested in the State, without clear criteria and without applying the public trust doctrine, violates Article 14 and the constitutional principle of equal protection. They argued that re-grant to a person who is not landless undermines rehabilitation for those displaced. They urged the Court to strike down the policy and to direct the State to consider a rehabilitation-focused framework within constitutional bounds. They emphasized that disposal should be governed by the public trust doctrine and that land which has ceased to serve the public purpose must be dealt with transparently under law.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the policy was designed to assist landless people and to reallocate land to those in need; appellants were not landless and thus not eligible for re-grant under the policy. They asserted that the policy is a legitimate instrument to promote social welfare and rehabilitation and that decision-making should respect statutory and policy-based discretion. They maintained that re-grant in suitable cases is permissible and that the State’s handling of disposals must be contextual and not arbitrary.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
In Re: Natural Resources Allocation	(2002) 10 SCC 1	Positive	Cited as supportive authority; used to interpret Article 14 and the public trust doctrine in disposal of government land.
V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors.	(2012) 12 SCC 133	Overruled	Current judgment departs from Chandrasekaran’s position by deeming the re-grant policy violative of Article 14 and emphasizing public trust principles.
V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors.	[2012] 10 SCR 603	Mentioned Only	Cited as a reference in para; not relied upon as governing principle in the present decision.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Mansukhbhai Dhamjibhai Patel & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2017] 12S.C.R.115 ## MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR. A v. ## STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 20919 of2017) DECEMBEROl, 2017 ## [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] _Land Acquisition:_ c - _Re-grant of acquired land Acquisition of land owned by_ - _appellant Resolution passed by the Government permitting regrant of land where land is considered to be of no use for public purpose_ - _In view of the resolution, appellants approached the High Court for release of the land_ - _High Court held that the land once_ D _acquired for public purpose could not be re-granted to the original owner_ - _On appeal, held: The policy_ is _in violation of law_ - _lf land acquired for public purpose is no longer needed for such purpose, the State can transfer such land but such disposal is regulated by doctrine of public trust_ - _ln instant case, apart from the appellants having not been found entitled to re-grant of the acquired land, re-_ E - _grant policy itself is against Art.14 Policy of the State may not be given effect to in future_ - _State at liberty to frame the appropriate policy in accordance with law for rehabilitation of the displaced persons who are rendered landless_ - _Constitution of India_ - _Art.14._ > _Re: Natural .Resources Allocation_ (2002)10 SCC 1 - relied on. F _V. Chandrasekaran and Anr. v. Administrative Officer and Ors._ (2012) 12 SCC 133 : [2012] 10 SCR 603 - referred to. G ## Case Law Reference [2012] 10 SCR 603 referred to Para 3 (2002) 10 sec 1 relied on Paras H 115 116 [2017] 12 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS A CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20919 of2017. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.04.2016 of the High Court of Gujarat atAhmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 4657 of2016 ## WITH B C. A. Nos. 20920 and 20921 of2017. Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Priyal Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs for the Appellants. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Jesal Wahi, Ms.Puja Singh, C Ms. Shodhika Sharma, Ad vs for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : ## **ORDER** I. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. D E F G 2. The land of the appellants was acquired in the year 1981 for the purpose of construction of a dam. In the year 2011, the appellants approached the High Court for release of the land in view of Resolution of the Government dated 31.08.2001 permitting re-grant ofland where land is considered to be of no use for public purpose. The learned Single Judge directed consideration of the said prayer which was rejected. 3. The appellants again approached the High Court. The High Court held that the land once acquired for public purpose could not be re-granted to the original owner in view of the law as laid down by this Court in V. _Chandrasekaran and Anr. Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. (2012) 12 SCC 133._ The High Court concluded thus: "It can thus be seen that the petitioner's request for re-grant of the land is legally not tenable. Nothing was stated by the learned Single Judge in his decision dated 06.08.2015 to change this position. Learned Judge merely directed reconsideration of the question of re-grant of land. Same cannot be done de-hors the law settled by Supreme Court through series of judgements. Merely because Government agencies opined that the land is no longer needed or that the same can be re-granted, would not change this legal position". H MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR. v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS 117 4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court, the following order was passed: A "Delay condoned. > Issue notice to consider the validity of policy which enables re-grant of land vested in the State without any valid criteria and without applying the doctrine of public trust in the matter of disposal of government land". 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the policy was ~made to help landless people and since the appellants were not landless, they are not entitled to avail of the policy. However, the policy was justified. 6. We are of the view that the policy is in violation of law. The High Court was justified in holding that re-grant ofland is not permissible. It is " different matter if there is policy for rehabilitation for persons displaced by the land acquisition, in case such persons are rendered landless. lfland acquired for public purpose is no longer needed for such purpose, the State can transfer such land but such disposal is regulated by doctrine of public trust. Thus apart from the appellants having not been found entitled to re-grant of the acquired land, re-grant policy itself is against Article 14 as interpreted in several decisions including in In Re: Natural Resources Allocation, (2002) 10 SCC I. 7. Accordingly, we direct that the policy of the State for re-grant may not be given effect to in future. The State will be at liberty to frame the appropriate policy in accordance with law for rehabilitation of the displaced persons who are rendered landless on account of acquisition within a period of three months. B c D E F 8. We make it clear that disposal of property vested in the State can only be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. G Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.