RAJAH PID NAIK Vs. SPECIAL DY COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the son of Rajah of Shorapuram in the erstwhile Nizam State with the status of Sahebjang Bahadur Balmat Mulkimdar of the Nizam of Hyderabad. The estate was performing certain religious rituals in the Tirumala Devasthanam. On 16-2-1934 an agreement was drawn, detailing the services and religious rituals to be rendered by the estate which included 1. Nitya Kalyana Mangala Haratis-2 2. Nitya Navaneeta Harati-1 3. Milk 1/2 ser. 4. Akhand ghee 1/2 ser. 5. Yearly supply of Saree and a Ravika to Ammavaru at Tiruchanur. 6. Silk Navar for the cot. 7. Mukhamal bed and 2 pillows. 8. Mosquito curtain. 9. Silver throne, Golden Hamsa Vahanam, Silver Cot and Chair, Charriot Mantapam, Ghanta Mantapam and Nandanavana. These services were being conducted in Teru Mantapam and Ghanta Mantapam located near the temple. It is the case of the petitioner that these services were inextricably connected with these mandapams and that they are being conducted even now. The 1st respondent issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 20-5-1986 proposing to acquire the lands and buildings in Ward No. 3, T.S. No. 23 having an extent of 01.12 hectares which constitute the Teru Mantapam and Ghanta Mantapam. Petitioner submits that a portion of the building proposed for acquisition is used as a Choultry for Pilgrims and other portions are let out to certain small vendors. Some of the rooms are occupied by persons who assist the petitioner in the discharge of religious rituals. Petitioner objected to that acquisition. An enquiry was conducted thereafter under Sec. 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Petitioner participated in those proceedings through a representative. Overruling the objections, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 6-3-87. The 1st respondent issued notice in Form No. 10 on 19-3-90 stating that an award was passed in the proposed acquisition on 28-2-1989. The 1st respondent directed the petitioner to deliver possession to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalai. Some of the residents of the building filed O. S. 464 of 1990 before the Prl. District Munsif, Tirupathi In I.A. 2363/90 in the said suit, an interim order was passed restraining the respondents from evicting those residents from the property. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not aware of those proceedings even though his power of attorney holder participated in them. Petitioner now assails the award proceedings which the 1st respondent passed on 28-2-89.

(2.) The main contentions which he raised are : that the public purpose mentioned in Section 4(1) notification i.e. "for construction of IV Choultry for the convenience of visiting pilgrims" cannot justify the acquisition since the petitioner is maintaining a portion of the concerned building rendering religious rituals and services and the other portion for identical purposes, as a choultry for the purpose of pilgrims. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is evident from the award proceedings that the entire compensation is paid by the 2nd respondent, which is not a 'State or a local authority' and as such the acquisition is not for a public purpose.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in so far as the acquisition interferes with the religious rituals winch the petitioner has been performing from times immemorial and which were codified in an agreement dt. 16-2-1934, the acquisition is violative of the petitioner's right to practise religion as guaranteed by Art. 26 of the Constitution of India. He also laid emphasis on the contentions referred to above viz., that the acquisition is not for a public purpose and that the compensation was paid entirely from out of the funds of the 2nd respondent which do not have the character of a public revenue. Counsel submitted emphatically that in so far as a prima facie case or an arguable case is made out, it is appropriate that the Writ Petition is admitted and the contentions are examined in greater detail.