Skip to main content

Land Belonging To Religious Bodies Can Be Acquired To Serve Larger Public Purpose

In Church Of North India Trust Association vs Union of India, the Allahabad High Court has held that land belonging to religious bodies can be acquired by the government for achieving a larger public purpose. A division bench of Justice V K Shukla and Justice MC Tripathi has dismissed a petition filed by the Church of North India Association challenging a notification by which its land was acquired for construction of a bypass road connecting Agra with Etawah. The petitioners contended that Constitution of India provides for Right to Freedom of Religion under Article 25 and the Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. As the Christian community has their place of worship viz Moore Memorial Church, Shikohabad, Firozabad district, and an ancient graveyard, which is operative till date, on the land concerned and these properties are place of worship under freedom of conscience, the removal of the church and the graveyard by the impugned notification, by which it is sought to be acquired, hurts the sentiments and religious conscience of the Christian community, they contended. It was submitted that the place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, also safeguards all the religious properties and any interference with it would offend the provisions of the said Act. Explaining the provisions of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, the court observed that Section 3 of the Act bars any person from converting any place of worship of any religious denomination into place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of different religious denomination or any section thereof. “Legislative intent of the same is clear that said provision had been introduced to see that communal harmony is not disturbed and persons of one religious community may not take on the other.” The bench made it clear that under the scheme of things, there is no bar to acquisition of land under the provision of National Highways Act, 1956, as the said Act enables the Central government to acquire land. It also held that acquisition proceeding under the National Highways Act cannot be permitted to be defeated on the purported premises that the said action is hit by Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. Dismissing the petition, the bench held that the courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub-serve the larger public interest.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/land-belonging-religious-bodies-can-acquired-serve-larger-public-purpose-allahabad-hc/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a