https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276925 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. en-us Thu, 29 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:50:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276925 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 29 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276925