SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(HP) 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA, JJ.
Dev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others - Respondents
CWP No. 3956 of 2015
Decided On : 06-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anand Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karan Sharma.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Ramakant Sharma and Ms. Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.Gs and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Dy. A.G., Mr. Maan Singh, Mr. Rajiv Rai, Mr. Balwant Thakur, Mr. Narender Sharma.

Point of Law : In H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953, Section 11 (2) carved out an exception in favour of a minor provided minor had no other means of livelihood.

Headnote:

H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953 - H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - H.P. Abolition of Big Land Act, 1953 - Registered trust - Local deities - Transfer of lands - Grievance against transfer of lands owned by local deities in favour of third parties, petitioner has approached Court - Transfer of minor’s interest by virtue of provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Land Act, 1953, came to be vested in tenant despite fact that deity had no other sufficient means for its livelihood - Para 17.

Finding of the Court :

Petitioner has espoused its cause by way of petition in capacity of an individual entity having allegedly found transfer of land belonging to deities in favour of private individuals or State worth cognizant under its aims and objects - This cannot be said to be espousal of cause of public interest - Simpliciter allegations are of violation of rights of a minor, however, without any specific instance or allegation - While exercising writ jurisdiction, Court even otherwise will not enter arena, which requires adjudication on intricate and disputed questions of facts - It should not be construed to be an approval of Court to any transaction having effect of transfer of property of idol (deity) in violation of law and in all such cases, person aggrieved can avail appropriate remedy available to him/her in accordance with law.

Result : Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

Petitioner is a registered trust. It claims to have been formed for various objectives including the one to protect the “Dev Sanskriti”. As per petitioner, the ‘Dev Sanskriti’ is an integral part of ethos of District Kullu. The value system intrinsically inculcates the devotion towards “Devtas” and “Devis” (local deities) in the local population of the district. A large number of local deities have their existence throughout the district having their respective area of prevalence.

2. Petitioner has specifically alleged that the local deities owned large tracts of land in their individual names. In view of personal inability of deities to cultivate their lands, the cultivation was being done through the tenants, who in almost all the cases were none else than the persons overlooking the management of the affairs of local deities. With the passage of time, various legislations have seen the light of the day for enforcing agrarian reforms. H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953 and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 being the important amongst them. Under the garb of these legislations, the agricultural holdings held in the names of local deities came to be transferred in favour of the tenants or tillers in possession. The tenants or the third parties, as the case may be, which came to be vested with the ownership of lands earlier owned by local deities, further transferred such lands to third parties and in most of the cases for tangible consideration.

3. Expressing its grievance against the transfer of the lands owned by local deities in favour of third parties, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition for the following substantive reliefs:-

    “(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the orders passed by the revenue authorities whereby permitting the Mujarian, Pujaries, Mohtmims and Kardars from time to time under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and the Abolition of Big Landed Estate Act, 1953 to transfer the land of the Devi Devtas without jurisdiction, being void, illegal and arbitrary, pertaining to the land belongs to Devi Devtas i.e. 90744 bighas out of which about 84000 bighas of land of Devi Devtas, who are minors as per settled law of land, has been transferred by Kardars, to third party without any right, title, interest over the property, which certainly belongs to Idols, who are minors as mentioned in jabamandies, wajib ul arz and as per the law laid down by the various Hon'ble High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and now only left out land in the names of Devi Devtas of Kullu District remains to be 8400 bighas.

(ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to constitute a high level committee to enquire the illegal acts without having even jurisdiction by the revenue agencies in connivance with the kardars against the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Wajib Ul Arz for the year 1948-49 to 2011-2012 and till date with the further direction to the respondents to get back possession of the respective idols, Devi Devtas who are admittedly minors in all manner whatsoever, which has been transferred/sold by the Mujarian, Pujaries, Mohtmims and Kardars to other persons for their individual interest.

(iii) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to issue necessary instructions thereby mentioning the accountability of all Kardars, Mohtimims, Manager, Mahant, Gaddi Nashin, Grandhi, trustee, Mutwali of the Devi Devtas in Kullu District in case they fail to discharge their obligatory duty, for which they have been appointed and penal consequences thereof.

(iv) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents, particularly, to the revenue and other registering authorities and other revenue agencie

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    SupremeToday

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top