The right to own and acquire property guaranteed by Article 26(c) of the Constitution is not absolute and can be restricted in the interests of public order, morality, and health.

Headnote:
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 88B(1) PROVISO - INTERPRETATION - RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS - OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLES 25(2) AND 26(C).
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, trustees of a Hindu temple, challenged the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 88B(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and Sections 32 to 32R of the Act, insofar as they affected agricultural lands belonging to religious denominations. The petitioners argued that the proviso, which required a trust to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, before it could claim exemption from the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R, violated their fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. They also argued that Sections 32 to 32R, which transferred the ownership of agricultural lands from landlords to tenants, violated their fundamental right to own and acquire movable and immovable property guaranteed by Article 26(c) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proviso to Section 88B(1) did not violate the petitioners' fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property because it was a reasonable restriction in the interests of public order, morality, and health. The Court also held that Sections 32 to 32R did not violate the petitioners' fundamental right to own and acquire movable and immovable property because they were of general application and did not specifically relate to the property rights of religious denominations.
Issues: 1. Whether the proviso to Section 88B(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, violated the petitioners' fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution? 2. Whether Sections 32 to 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, violated the petitioners' fundamental right to own and acquire movable and immovable property guaranteed by Article 26(c) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The proviso to Section 88B(1) did not violate the petitioners' fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property because it was a reasonable restriction in the interests of public order, morality, and health. The requirement that a trust be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, before it could claim exemption from the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R was a reasonable way to ensure that the trust was a genuine religious trust and that the property was being used for religious purposes. 2. Sections 32 to 32R did not violate the petitioners' fundamental right to own and acquire movable and immovable property because they were of general application and did not specifically relate to the property rights of religious denominations. The provisions of Sections 32 to 32R applied to all landlords, regardless of their religious affiliation. The fact that the provisions resulted in the transfer of ownership of agricultural lands from landlords to tenants did not mean that they violated the petitioners' fundamental right to own and acquire property.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 88B(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and Sections 32 to 32R of the Act.

JUDGMENT - Tarkunde, J.

1. These four petitions have given rise to common questions relating to the interpretation of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the constitutional validity of the said proviso and of Sections 32 to 32R of the said Act in so far as these provisions affect agricultural lands belonging to religious denominations. In order to appreciate the questions raised and the arguments advanced on either side, it would be enough to notice the facts involved in one of these petitions.

2. In Special Civil Application No. 1129 of 1964 the petitioners are the trustees of a public trust whose object is to maintain a Hindu temple and to continue the worship of the deity installed therein. The trust was created as early as in 1845. The trust owned an agricultural land in a village in the Nasik District. The first respondent was the tenant of the land from before 1957. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act") which applied to this land was extensively amended by Bombay Act XIII of 1956. The amending Act added Sections 32 to 32R to the parent Act with the object of transferring the ownership of agricultural lands-from landlords to tenants. Subject to certain exceptions with which we are not concerned, tenants became owners of the lands in their possession from the tillers day, which was the 1st of April 1957. By the same amending Act Section 88B was also added to the parent Act. Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 88B, along with the proviso to that Sub-section, is in the following terms:

"Section 88B(1). -- Nothing in the foregoing provisions except Sections 3, 4B, 8, 9, 9A, 9B, 9C, 10, 11A, 11, 13 and 27 and the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII in so far as the provisions of the said Chapters are applicable to any of the matters referred to in the sections mentioned above, shall apply -

(b) to lands which are the property of a trust for an educational purpose, a hospital, Panjarapole, Gaushala or an institution for public religious worship;

.....

Provided that --

(i) such trust is or is deemed to be registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and

(ii) the entire income of such lands is appropriated for the purposes of such trust"

Sub-section (2) of Section 88B, which was added by a subsequent amendment in 1961, runs as follows:--

Section 88B(2). -- For the purposes of this section, a certificate granted by the Collector, after holding an enquiry, that the conditions in the proviso to Sub-section (1) are satisfied by any trust shall be conclusive evidence in that behalf."

The public religious trust in the present case was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, on 28th March 1958. Thereafter the petitioners applied in 1962 to the Assistant Collector for an exemption certificate under Subsection (1)(b) and Sub-section (2) of Section 88B. The application was opposed by the present respondent No. 1 on the ground that he had become owner of the land on the tillers day (1st April 1957) prior to the date on which the trust was registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act and that the land was, therefore, not entitled to the exemption claimed by the petitioners. The Assistant Collector upheld this contention and rejected the application filed by the petitioners. From this order the petitioners approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision. The Revenue Tribunal rejected the revision application, but on a different ground. It held that the trust was not registered on 1st August 1956 when section 88B came into force and that the land was, therefore, not entitled to the exemption claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court for a writ or direction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the above orders of the Assistant Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

3. In support of the petition two submissions were made by Mr. G

Click Here to Read the rest of this document