TEMPLE THAKURDWARA Vs. SIHANU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Sec. 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 arises out of proceedings upon an application under Sec. 11(1) of that Act.

(2.) The respondent, who is the tenant of the appellant, applied under Sec. 11(1) of the aforesaid Act for the acquisition of the rights of the landowner in the land held by him as tenant. The application was rejected by the Compensation Officer. On appeal, the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, set aside the order of the Compensation Officer and held the respondent entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. The learned District Judge took the view that the Appellant, a Hindu idol, must be treated to be a perpetual minor, but as it had not been shown that it was not without other means of livelihood and also because the plea that it had no other means of livelihood had not been taken in the objections before the Compensation Officer, he held that the benefit of Sec. 11(2) was not available to the Appellant. It was also contended before the learned District Judge that Sec. 11 of the Act was invalid inasmuch as property dedicated to a Hindu idol could not be alienated. The learned District Judge held that no question of alienation arose under the provisions of Sec. 11 of the Act. He also referred to the decision in Sri Namdhari Gurudwara v/s. Nakbinoo, 1969 P.L.R. 71 3431, where Dua C.J., has observed that Sec. 11 of the Act does not contravene Article 26 of the Constitution.

(3.) An attempt was made on behalf of the Appellant to show that Sec. 11 contravenes Article 26 of the Constitution which guarantees to all religious denominations the right to own and acquire property. The very point urged before us was 1. : 1969 71 P.L.R. 343. considered in Sri Namdhari Gurudwara v/s. Nakbinoo (supra). It was held that Article 26(c) did not confer upon a religious denomination any greater right in property than was possessed by a citizen in respect of similar property, and that Sec. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 could not be said to contravene Article 26(c) of the Constitution. In Laxminarayan Temple, Kothure v/s. Laxman Mahadu Chandore, A.I.R. 1970 Bom. 233, the Bombay High Court pointed out that Article 26(c) only meant that every religious denomination would have the same rights in respect of the ownership and acquisition of movable and immovable property as were available to other members of the public. The learned Judges held that Article 26(c) is not violated by those provisions of law which are of general application and which do not specifically relate to the property rights of religious denominations. It was held by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Narayanan Nair v/s. State of Kerala, I.L.R. 1970 (2) Ker 3154 that the right guaranteed by Article 26(c) was subject to the ordinary laws. It seems to me that the contention is without force and must be rejected.