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 ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...