1974 (10) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Article 26(c) of the Constitution.
2. Compliance with Article 31(2) and its relation to Article 26(c).
3. Applicability of Article 31A in relation to Article 26(c).
4. Adequacy of compensation under Section 31 of the Act.

Summary:

1. Violation of Article 26(c) of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, violates Article 26(c) of the Constitution as it deprives religious denominations of their ownership of property. The Court held that Article 26(c) guarantees the right to own and acquire property for managing religious affairs but does not preclude the State from acquiring such property under Article 31(2). The Court found no conflict between Article 26 and Article 31, stating that the right to own property vanishes once it is lawfully acquired by the State.

2. Compliance with Article 31(2) and its relation to Article 26(c):
The appellant contended that the Act, while fulfilling the requirements of Article 31(2), also needs to comply with Article 26(c). The Court referred to the Khajamian Wakf Estates case, which held that Article 26 does not interfere with the State's right to acquire property. The Court found no inconsistency between the Khajamian Wakf Estates case and the Bank Nationalisation case, rejecting the appellant's argument.

3. Applicability of Article 31A in relation to Article 26(c):
The appellant argued that Article 31A does not exclude the operation of Article 26(c). The Court held that no rights in an organized society are absolute and that the Directive Principles of State Policy impose an obligation on the State to regulate conduct for social welfare. The Court concluded that the Act, aimed at agrarian reform, does not violate Article 26(c) and is protected under Article 31A.

4. Adequacy of compensation under Section 31 of the Act:
The appellant claimed that the compensation provided under Section 31 of the Act is grossly inadequate. The Court held that objections regarding the adequacy of compensation cannot be entertained against legislation related to agrarian reform, which is protected under Article 31A. Therefore, this submission also failed.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the constitutional validity of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, and ruled that the Act does not violate Article 26(c) of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed with costs.