1961 (4) TMI 98 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds property rights, restrains interference, emphasizes rule of law

Bishan Das and others Versus State of Punjab and others

The Court held that the petitioners were not trespassers and had the right to manage the properties, emphasizing that even if the trust was public, the ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of dispossession by the State and its officials.2. Nature of the property and the rights of the petitioners.3. Violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution.4. Appropriate legal remedies and procedures for removal of the trustee.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Dispossession by the State and its OfficialsThe petitioners alleged that they were dispossessed from the dharmasala, temple, and shops by the State of Punjab and its officials without any authority of law. The Municipal Committee, Barnala, took possession of the dharmasala and opened its office in its main room. The petitioners contended that these acts constituted a flagrant infringement of their fundamental rights to hold and possess the properties unless evicted in due course of law.The Court held that the petitioners could not be considered trespassers as they were in bona fide possession of the constructions. The State and its officials could not remove the petitioners by an executive fiat. The Court emphasized that even if the trust was of a public nature, the trustee could only be removed by a procedure known to law, not by an executive order.2. Nature of the Property and the Rights of the PetitionersThe land on which the dharmasala, temple, and shops stood was 'nazul' property of the then State of Patiala. With the State's permission, Lala Ramji Das built the dharmasala, temple, and shops and managed them during his lifetime. After his death, the petitioners continued the management. The Court noted that the buildings did not belong to the Government merely because they were on Government land. The petitioners were not trespassers and had a right to manage the properties.The Court also referred to the maxim 'quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit' and stated that it had not been accepted as an absolute rule of law in India. Therefore, the State did not acquire any rights over the constructions merely because they were on Government land.3. Violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the ConstitutionThe petitioners argued that their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 were violated as they were deprived of their property by the State and its officers through executive orders without authority of law. The Court agreed with the petitioners, stating that the executive action taken by the State and its officers was destructive of the basic principle of the rule of law. The Court emphasized that the State or its executive officers could not interfere with the rights of others unless they could point to some specific rule of law authorizing their acts.4. Appropriate Legal Remedies and Procedures for Removal of the TrusteeThe Court noted that even if the property was trust property, the trustee could only be removed through appropriate legal action, such as a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The State's Legal Remembrancer had opined that Ramji Das could only be removed as a result of such a suit. The Court reiterated that the State and its officials could not take the law into their own hands and remove the trustee by an executive order.ConclusionThe Court allowed the petition with costs and issued a writ restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' management of the dharmasala, temple, and shops. The Court quashed the executive orders that led to the dispossession of the petitioners and emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law and legal procedures in such matters.