Dharmarth Trust vs State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others

The petitioner Dharmarth Trust has come to this Court with a prayer that instead of paying compensation they be given in exchange the State

land. It is submitted that the petitioner is a religious body looking after the management, supervision, control of the Trust in the State of Jammu and

Kashmir.

It is submitted that land measuring 5 Kanals and 16 Marias which is a State land comprising in Khasra No. 618 Chand Nagar Jammu was given

in exchange of land to out Amrit Malhotra. As indicated above the petitioner submits that instead of paying compensation they be granted

alternative site in the city of Jammu. It is stated that some Samadhis were existing on a piece of land measuring 1 Kanal 15 Marias This was in Kh.

No. 620. situated at below Gumat. Jammu. This was known as Samadhi Rajgan

The law does recognise the shifting of Samadhis. If any judicial precedent is requited then reference be made to the decision given by the Punjab

and Haryana High Court in the case reported as Akhara Shri Braham But a v. State of Punjab. Civil Writ No. 8539 of 1988, 1987(2) Legal

Reports and Statute 542 wherein it was observed:

Learned counsel for the petitioner con tended that the acquisition was completely violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution as acquisition

of religious places is totally prohibited under the Constitution. He relied on Mahant Ram Kishan Dass v. State of Punjab and others 1980(1) SCC

377: (1986) I Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes 394 to contend that the Samadh therein had been left out from acquisition and from this it was

inferable that since to survival of the Samadh was itself at stake the State voluntarily walked out of the acquisition.

We are not impressed by the arguments of both learned counsel. The institution is quite apart from the brick and mortar which has gone to make

the Shiv Mandir and the building in the complex known as Akhara Shri Braham Buta. Descriptively it is said to contain a few Samadhs, some

pictures and idols of Hindu dieties besides in the Shiv Temple, the Shivling. The avowed object of the impugned notification is not to preserve the

Golden Temple at the pain of death of other surrounding institutions but the effort is founded in larger public interest as seen in Smt. Daljit Kaur's

case (supra). The petitioner being a religious denomination cannot as held by Supreme Court in Acharya Maharalshri Narendra Prasadi

Anandprasadji Maharaj etc. v. The State of Gujarat and others AIR 1974 SC 2098, claim itself to be a citizen so as to invoke the protection of

Article 25 of the Constitution and squally the protections of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution in the limited area of the present set of facts.

Article 26, however, confers on every religious denomination or any section thereof, the right of establish and maintain institutions for religious and

charitable purposes to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, to own and acquire movable and immovable property; and to administer such

property in accordance with law but subject to public order, morality and health of the society. These rights for the religious denominations were

also earlier spelled out in Khajamian Wakf Estates etc. v. The State of Madras etc. AIR 1971 SC 61. Article 26 however does not guarantee the

freedom to establish and maintain a religious and charitable institution at a particular place or to make it immune from acquisition under the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The free practice of religion presupposes the practising of it anywhere and not at any particular place. The

acquisition of land of such institution does not by itself destroy or completely negative the right of any denomination to establish or maintain any

institution for religious purposes. On the receipt of compensation payable on account of the acquisition, the religious denomination can always

acquire any other property for the same purpose for which the acquired land was being utilised. In this sense neither is the institution killed nor

destroyed merely by acquisition of its properties It can achieve the same purpose by moving like a natural person. Thus for the aforesaid reasoning,

we are of the considered view that by the acquisition of the aforespecified properties neither is the institution destroyed or annihilated nor is the

action of the respondents violative of Articles 14, 19, 25 or 26 of the Constitution. We hold it accordingly.

4 In view of the above judgment and in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents are directed to allot alternative land to the

petitioner Trust so that the object of workship, which was there is recreated. Let this be done within a period of four months from the date a copy

of this order is made available by the petitionerTrust to the respondents. 5. Disposed of accordingly.