Allegations Are Non-Specific In Nature: Himachal Pradesh HC While Denying Relief Against Transfer Of Lands Of Local Deities
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has refused to grant relief in a plea challenging the transfer of lands belonging to the local deities saying that the allegations are non-specific in nature.
A Division Bench of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya held, “The allegations, as noticed above, are non-specific in nature and without there being any specific averments in respect of particular impugned transaction(s). … In view of the general nature of allegations made by the petitioner, there is no available clue as to the exact nature or even the number of allegedly offending transactions having taken place as result of enforcement of each of the above noted statutes.”
The question that arose for determination before the Bench was whether the vestment of lands owned by deities(idols) in the State or tenants or any other third person could be validly effected under H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953, H.P. Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1953, and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, and if not, whether the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can grant the prayers made in the petition.
Senior Advocate Anand Sharma appeared for the petitioner while Advocate General Anup Rattan, Addl. AGs Ramakant Sharma, Sharmila Patial, and Dy. AG Priyanka Chauhan appeared for the State. Advocate Maan Singh appeared for the respondents.
In this case, the petitioner, a registered trust, claimed to have been an integral part of the ethos of District Kullu and a large number of local deities existed throughout the district having their respective area of prevalence. The petitioner alleged that local deities owned large tracts of land in their individual names and in view of personal inability of deities to cultivate their lands, the cultivation was being done through the tenants, who in almost all the cases were none else than the persons overlooking the management of the affairs of local deities.
With the passage of time, various legislations saw the light of the day for enforcing agrarian reforms, H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953, and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 being the most important amongst them. Under the garb of these legislations, the agricultural holdings held in the names of local deities came to be transferred in favour of the tenants or tillers in possession and the tenants or the third parties, which came to be vested with the ownership of lands earlier owned by local deities, further transferred such lands to third parties and in most of the cases for tangible consideration. Expressing its grievance against the transfer of the lands owned by local deities in favour of third parties, the petitioner approached the court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel noted, “In none of the case, it has been shown before this Court that the transfer of minor’s interest by virtue of provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Land Act, 1953, came to be vested in the tenant despite the fact that deity had no other sufficient means for its livelihood. In this view of the matter, no adjudication can be made by this Court.”
The Court said that the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the judgments as they were passed after considering the facts of the individual cases.
“This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not going to make fishing or roving inquiry and to issue any direction to the official respondents in absurdity. The petitioner has espoused its cause by way of the instant petition in the capacity of an individual entity having allegedly found the transfer of land belonging to deities in favour of private individuals or State worth cognizant under its aims and objects. As such, this cannot be said to be the espousal of the cause of public interest”, observed the Court.
The Court further observed that the simpliciter allegations are of violation of the rights of a minor, however, without any specific instance or allegation.
“… we have no hesitation to say that except for bald assertion made in the petition, no tangible material has been placed to substantiate the allegations. … We, however, cannot restrain ourselves from observing that petitioner has not been able to prima-facie satisfy us as to the basis on which it has drawn distinction between recognized or unrecognized/established or unestablished deities in the State for the purposes of distribution of funds allocated by the Government”, held the Court.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the plea and denied relief to the petitioner.
Cause Title- Dev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu v. State of H.P. & Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:HHC:7553-DB)
