"One who would strike down a state statute as obnoxious to the Federal Constitution must show that the alleged unconstitutional feature injures him." Premier-Pabst Sales Co. v. Grosscup, 298 U.S. 226, 227, 56 S.Ct. 754, 755, 80 L. ed. 1155; Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 73 S. Ct. 1031, 97 L. ed. 1586; Morgan v. Commonwealth, 168 Va. 731, 191 S.E. 791, 111 A.L.R. 62; Grosso v. Commonwealth, 177 Va. 830, 13 S.E.2d 285; Bailey v. Anderson, 182 Va. 70, 27 S.E.2d 914; Avery v. Beale, 195 Va. 690, 80 S.E.2d 584; 11 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, Sec. 111 et seq., p. 748 et seq.; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sec. 76 et seq., p. 226 et seq. For the reasons stated the writ of mandamus must be denied.

The test is not what the owner may choose to do, but what under the law he must do, and whether a public trust is impressed upon the land. Bailey v. Anderson, 182 Va. 70, 27 S.E.2d 914, 917 ( Sup. Ct. App. 1943), certiorari denied 321 U.S. 799, 64 S.Ct. 940, 88 L.Ed. 1087 (1944). See also Tate v. City of Malden, 334 Mass. 507, 136 N.E.2d 188 ( Sup. Jud. Ct. 1956), and Bogart v. Hackensack Water Co., 101 N.J.L. 518 ( E. A. 1925).