Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners could be dispossessed from the dharmasala, temple and shops by executive orders without authority of law, and whether such action violated their fundamental rights.
Analysis: The petitioners were in possession of constructions raised with the State's permission on Government land, and were not trespassers. The State's position that the structures vested in it merely because they stood on its land was rejected, since constructions erected bona fide with permission do not automatically vest in the landowner. Even assuming the property was of a public charitable character, the trustee or person in management could be removed only by procedure known to law, including appropriate legal proceedings such as those contemplated by Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and not by executive order. The respondents pointed to no legal authority permitting forcible dispossession or the Municipal Committee's assumption of management.
Conclusion: The executive orders and the forcible dispossession were unlawful and infringed the petitioners' fundamental rights; the orders were quashed and interference with the petitioners' management was restrained.