The Public Trust doctrine has its roots in Roman Law and significantly developed in its modern form by the Courts in the United States. This doctrine, its scope and its application in India were discussed at length by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra2025 INSC 701.
The Doctrine is primarily employed in cases involving environmental and ecological matters, but it is not limited to these areas. According to this doctrine, certain natural properties or resources like rivers, forests, air, etc are held by the Government in trust so that everyone (its subject) has free and common access to these resources.
In the instant case, forest land (‘subject land’), measuring a total area of 13.27 ha, was declared to be reserved forest. Subsequently, by another notification around three and a half acres, of the subject land was separated and divested of this “reserved forest” status. The said separated land, thus, ceased to be reserved forest.
One ‘Chavan Family’ was cultivating this three and half acres of land by virtue of it being granted as compensation by the Government for another piece of land. The grant was subject to certain conditions the three and a half acres should compulsorily be kept under cultivation and without the permission from the District Collector no changes could be made in the character of the said land. The family, subsequently, entered into agreements ceding the said land to the builders including the development rights.
Owing to subsequent developments, on 28th August 1998 the whole subject land was allotted to the family, i.e. the remaining 11.89 ha was given to the family. Subsequently, permission for the sale of this subject land was also granted by the Government.
As per the Forest (Conservation) Act, of 1980 no character of land declared to be reserved forest can be changed or can be used for any non-forest purpose, except on the prior approval of the Union Government. But the State Government failed to reserve this prior approval of the Union Government, therefore the allotment of the reserved forest land was vacated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case.
Doctrine of Public Trust:
In Roman Law, these natural resources were considered as res nullious or res communious i.e. either owned by no one or owned by everyone in common and the sovereign was restrained from allotting these natural properties or resources to any private persons if such allotment was such that it would have interfered with the public interest of navigations or fishing.
According to Joseph L. Sax, the properties used for public purposes are different from the general public property that can be granted to private persons by the Government. These resources/properties are considered as the gift of nature which should be allowed to be freely accessible to everyone at large. The Public Trust Doctrine enjoins a duty on the Government to preserve the public status of these properties allowing its enjoyment by everyone and to preclude private persons from commercially exploiting these resources.
The Judgement of the Supreme Court of Illinois in Central Railroad Co.[1], advanced this doctrine in the United States. In this case, the central railroad was allotted submerged land along the shore of Lake Michigan, and subsequently, the legislature revoked the allotment. The court upheld the revocation by the legislature observing that the title of state in this allotted land was different than land which the state can sell because public resources are held by the state in trust for the benefit of the people.
The Court aptly observed that when these common/public resources are allocated by the state, the court will with strong doubt look into the governmental conduct i.e. whether by such allocation the public resources are being relocated to more restricted uses or whether it is subjected to the self-interest of private persons.
Earlier in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, the Supreme Court had held that the State is the trustee whereas the public at large is the beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air, forests and ecologically fragile lands. These public resources, thus, cannot be converted so to serve private interests.The court in the instant case reiterated that executives acting in public trust cannot convert these natural resources to private ownership, or commercial use.
In M.I. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu, [(1999) 6 SCC 464], the Court had vacated the decision of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation allowing the construction of a shopping complex under a public park near Aminabad market in Lucknow. The Court applied the public trust doctrine observing that the Corporation being the Trustee of this public property should not have allowed such construction.
In Intellectuals Forum v. State of A.P., [(2006) 3 SCC 549], the court held that when any Government action related to public resources freely available for public use is concerned high degree of judicial scrutiny of the same is necessary to check whether the attempts restrict free use.
Based, inter alia, upon this, the court in the instant case, observed that the Revenue Minister and Divisional Commissioner while making a grant of the whole subject land to the ‘Chavan Family’ had given a go-bye to the doctrine of public trust thereby sacrificing the precious forest land and thus vacated the grant restoring the subject land to the status of ‘reserved forest’.
Conclusion:
The doctrine is rightly summarized by the court in M.C. Mehta’s case where it held that the doctrine puts an ‘implicit embargo’ on the state by restraining the state from converting public properties into private or commercial property serving private interests at the stake of public interests. Therefore, the doctrine not only restrains arbitrary Governmental actions but also acts as a constitutional tool for environmental justice.
[1]Central Railroad Co. v. People of the State of Illinois, [146 US 387 (1892) : 36 L.Ed. 1018]
Author Name- Rachcha Harshal Abhijit, BA.LL.B, 5th Year (2021-26) Student
