Act of State cannot defeat pre-existing property rights after the Constitution; executive revocation was quashed.

Post-Constitution executive revocation of pre-accession grants could not be justified as an act of State where the grants had never been resumed or confiscated before the Constitution commenced. The Court reasoned that, once constitutional sovereignty began, existing possessory and proprietary rights in the territory were protected and could not be defeated by arbitrary executive interference without legal authority. The petitioners were therefore entitled to constitutional relief under article 32, and the impugned orders were quashed with restraint against further action and restoration of possession if already taken.

---

---

Issues: Whether the post-Constitution revocation of the grants could be justified as an act of State, and whether the petitioners were entitled to protection under the Constitution against interference with their possession and title.

Analysis: The grants were made before final accession and were never resumed or confiscated before the Constitution came into force. The reasoning rejects the contention that the Union could, after the Constitution, rely on act of State doctrine to revoke the petitioners' rights. Once the Constitution commenced, the territories and their inhabitants became part of a sovereign democratic republic, and arbitrary confiscatory power could not survive except where expressly preserved. The petitioners had existing possessory and proprietary rights which were protected by the Constitution, and the impugned executive revocation was not supported by any legal authority.

Conclusion: The revocation could not be sustained as an act of State, and the petitioners were entitled to relief under article 32.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were quashed and the State was restrained from acting upon them, with restoration of possession directed if already taken.

Ratio Decidendi: After the Constitution came into force, executive action cannot defeat existing private property rights in Indian territory by invoking act of State, and such interference is enforceable through article 32 where constitutional protection is infringed.

---