Summary
One Ramjidas built a dharmasala, a temple and shops appurtenant thereto with the joint family funds on Government land with the permission of the Government.
After his death the other members who were in management and possession of those properties were dispossessed by the State, its officers and the local Municipality which was put in possession. The petitioners applied to the Punjab High Court for the issue of appropriate writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution, but the petition was dismissed on the, preliminary, ground that the matter involved disputed questions of fact. An appeal against that order was also dismissed on the same ground. The petitioners then moved this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Their case was that they had been evicted without authority of law and in violation of the Constitution. It was urged on behalf of the State that the property being trust property built on Government land, the petitioners were mere trespassers liable to be ejected with the minimum amount of force and relying on the decision of this Court in Sohal Lal v. The Union of India, it was further urged that redress by way of writs was wholly inappropriate in disputes on questions of fact and title.Held, that on the admitted facts of the case the petitioners could not be trespassers in respect of the dharmasala, temple and shops, nor the State the owner of the property, irrespective of whether it was a trust, public or private.The maxim, that what is annexed to the soil goes with the soil, is not an absolute rule of law in this country, and if the State wanted to remove the constructions or resume the land, it should have taken appropriate legal action for the purpose.Thakoor Chunder Parmanick v. Ramdhone Bhuttacharjee, (1866) 6 W. R. 228, Lala Beni Ram v. Kundan Lall, (1899) L.R. 26I.A. 58, and Narayan Das Khettry v. jatindranath, (1927)L.R. 45 I.A. 218, referred to.Even if Ramjidas was no more than a trustee, that would not give the State or its officers the right to take the law into their 70own hands and the argument that the petitioners were tres- passers and could be removed by an executive order must be rejected not merely as specious but highly dangerous in its implication.It was not necessary in this case to determine disputed questions of fact, nor as regards the precise rights of the petitioners. It was enough that they were bona fide in possession of the property and could not be removed except by authority of law.The executive action taken in the present case must be deprecated as being destructive of the basic principles of the rule of law; it was a highly discriminatory and autocratic act which deprived a person of the possession of property without reference to any law or legal authority.See the full content of this document
Extract
Bishan Das And Others VS. The State Of Punjab And Others
PETITIONER: BISHAN DAS AND OTHERS Vs.RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1961BENCH: DAS, S.K.BENCH: DAS, S.K.SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)SARKAR, A.K.AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALAMUDHOLKAR, J.R.CITATION: 1961 AIR 1570 1962 SCR (2) 69CITATOR INFO : RF 1976 SC1207 (183,543)R 1982 SC 33 (41)D 1986 SC 872 (82,84)F 1989 SC 997 (15)ACT: Fundamental Rights, infringement of-Dharmasala constructed with joint family funds on Government land with Government's permission--Joint family members bona fide in possession and management-Eviction by executive action-Constitutionality Constitution of India, Arts. 14,19, 31.JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 24 of 1960.Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.C. B. Aggarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the petitioners.N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.K. L. Mehta and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No. 3.1961. April 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. K. DAS, J.-This is a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in respect of a dharmasala, ...
See the full content of this document