MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                      [2017] 12S.C.R.115


        MANSUKHBHAI DHAMJIBHAI PATEL & ANR.                              A

                                  v.

                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                  (Civil Appeal No. 20919 of2017)                        B
                       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 re-
grant 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 -                 F
      relied on.

      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            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017] 12 S.C.R.


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              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
E     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
 F    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
G           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                                   117
               GUJARAT & ORS

       4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court,             A
the following order was passed:
       "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     B
       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.                                                                     c
        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          D
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.                                 E
      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.
                                                                                   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.