'Non-Specific Allegations': Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Alleged Transfer Of Lands Belonging To Local Deities

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a registered trust seeking a declaration that the transfer of lands belonging to local deities to third parties, under various land reform acts is void ab initio.

The bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Satyen Vaidya ruled that the petitioner had failed to provide specific instances where the property of deities had been transferred against their interests.

The petitioner, a trust claiming to be formed to protect the "Dev Sanskriti" and the cultural ethos of District Kullu, in its plea submitted that the local deities owned large tracts of land, which were subsequently transferred to tenants and third parties under land reform acts like H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953 and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

The trust alleged that these transfers were illegal and arbitrary, as they adversely affected the interests of the deities, who are considered perpetual minors under the law.

The official respondents contesting the claim of petitioner argued that the land earlier owned by local deities came to be vested either in State or in private persons under the provisions of H.P. Big Landed Estate Act, 1953, H.P. Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1972 and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and since the constitutional validity of all these legislations have been upheld, the transfer of lands made in pursuance thereto cannot be assailed by petitioner in present form.

Respondents further submitted that the transfers in pursuance to aforesaid legislations have taken place decades back and the claim of the petitioner on such a belated stage is not bonafide and maintainable.

Addressing the objection raised by the respondents regarding the delayed filing of the petition, the bench at its very outset stated that the invocation of writ jurisdiction in this case is aimed to protect the rights of perpetual minors (deities) and, therefore, the principles of limitation and delay do not strictly apply.

Acknowledging the well-established legal concept that an idol of a Hindu temple is a juridical person and is treated as a perpetual minor the bench emphasised that when the person responsible for representing the idol, known as the shebait, fails to protect its interests, a worshipper or an interested party can be granted ad hoc power to represent the idol and safeguard its rights.

“In most of the cases, the income of deity is from offerings or/and from the returns from its properties. In so far as these are appropriated towards the better management of religious affairs of the deity, possibly no questions come to be raised. It is only when the manager(s) of the properties of (idol) deity indulges in the mismanagement of such properties or deal with them in a manner prejudicial to the rights of deity, their action becomes questionable and in appropriate cases where their malfeasance is proved, the transactions are vitiated”, the bench explained.

However, the court observed that in the instant case, the petitioner's claims lacked specificity and failed to provide concrete details about the alleged transactions as the challenge has not directed at any particular transfer where the property of a deity had been transferred against their interests.

“As per petitioners, in most of the cases the beneficiaries were none else than the ‘Pujaris or Kardars’ of the idol (deity). The allegations, as noticed above, are non-specific in nature and without there being any specific averments in respect of particular impugned transaction(s)”, the bench pointed.

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 a result of enforcement of each of the above-noted statutes, the bench noted.

Regarding the unequal distribution of funds to local deities by the State government, the court noted that the petitioner had not substantiated its claims with evidence. It observed that the petitioner had not convincingly explained the distinction made between recognized and unrecognized deities for the distribution of government funds.

“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 bench said while dismissing the petition.

Case Title: Dev Sanskriti Charitable Trust Kullu Vs State of H.P. & others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 52

Click Here To Read/Download Order