<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>I will search for case law on the fact that land cannot be bought or sold, but I don't know that i'll find anything. That concept is embedded into the concept of Allodial Title which is a common law concept. Here's a challenge: read the do***ents for your property. Try and find a single indication that the land itself was purchased. I beleive you'll find and explicit clause in your Grant Deed that states the land is GRANTED.
Here are some excerpts that may be useful:
‘After exclusive jurisdiction over lands
within a State have been ceded to the United States, private property located
thereon is not subject to taxation by the State, nor can state statutes enacted
subsequent to the transfer have any operation therein.’
<font size="-1">Surplus Trading Company v. Cook, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=281&page=647&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">281
U.S. 647</a>; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chiles, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=214&page=274&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">214
U.S. 274</a>; Arlington Hotel v. Fant, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=278&page=439&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">278
U.S. 439</a>; Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture, <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=318&page=285&li nkurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.law.umich.edu%252F&gr aphurl=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.findlaw.com%252Fimag es%252Fmichigan.gif" target="_blank">318
U.S. 285</a>
<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=466&invol=198" target="_blank">
Summa
Corp. v California, 466 US 198</a>
California cannot at this late date assert its public trust easement over petitioner's property, when petitioner's predecessors-in-interest had their interest confirmed without any mention of such an easement in the federal patent proceedings. The interest claimed by California is one of such substantial magnitude that regardless of the fact that the claim is asserted by the State in its sovereign capacity, this interest must have been presented in the patent proceedings or be barred. Cf. Barker v. Harvey,
<a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=181&invol=481">181
U.S. 481
</a>; United States v. Title Ins. & Trust
<font size=-1 color=#005500>
<a name=199>[466
U.S. 198, 199]
</a>Â*
[/color] Co.,
<a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=265&invol=472">265
U.S. 472
</a>; United States v. Coronado Beach Co.,
<a href="/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=255&invol=472">255
U.S. 472
</a>. Pp. 205-209.
31 Cal. 3d 288, 644 P.2d 792, reversed and remanded.