M. Padmanabha Iyengar, Appellant v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, Respondents.

Land Acquisition Act (1894), Section 4, 6- Public purposes- Acquisition of land abutting temple for development as per Master Plan- Object of widening streets or planned development of entire temple area is public purpose.

Constitution of India, Article 26(c). Only one property of certain religious denomination sought to be acquired- Its other properties are not affected nor does it’s right to own property elsewhere in country is defeated and acquisition (is valid).

Jeevan Reddy and Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.J.

 The purpose stated in the impugned notifications viz. implementation of Master Plan, or construction of Kalyan Mantapam, or Countries is undoubtedly a public purpose. It is not denied by the petitioners that a large volume of pilgrim-traffic visits Tirumala Town every day and visits the temple. It is also not disputed that on certain days the traffic runs into tens of thousands. All this pilgrim-traffic must be housed, fed, and provided with reasonable opportunities to visit the temple and perform their ceremonies and rites. It is also not disputed that Mada Streets are very narrow and that they need to be widened in the interest of safety of pilgrims. Can it be said in such a situation that the object of widening the streets, or the planned development of the entire area, is not a public purpose?

26. It is then argued by the learned counsel that the land concerned in this case is owned by a Mutt; that, the Mutt is run by Madhava Denomination, recognized as a religious denomination by the Supreme Court, and that the acquisition of its entire property disables it from carrying on its activities altogether. Article 26 of the Constitution is relied upon as prohibiting such acquisition.

The object underlying Article 26 has been explained in several decisions. It is enough to refer to the decision in Narendra Prasadji v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1974 SC 2098. The following observations in the said judgment are relevant:

'Article 26 guarantees, inter alia, the right to own and acquire movable and immovable property for managing religious affairs. This right, however, cannot take away the right of the State to compulsorily acquire property in accordance with the provisions of Article 31(2). If, on the other hand, acquisition of property of a religious denomination by the State can be proved to be such as to destroy or completely negative its right to own and acquire movable and immovable property for even the survival of a religious institution the question may have to be examined in a different light. When, however, property is acquired by the State in accordance with law and with the provisions of Article 31(2) and the acquisition cannot be assailed on any valid ground open to the person concerned, be it a religious institution, the right to own that property vanishes as that right is transferred to the State. Thereafter there is no question of any right to own the particular property subject to public order, morality and health and Article 26 will in the circumstances be of no relevance. This being the legal position there is no conflict between Article 26 and Article 31.'

27. It is thus evident that unless the acquisition of property of a religious denomination is such as to totally deprive that religious denomination of its right to own and acquire movable and immovable property, necessary for survival of the religious institution, the acquisition cannot be faulted. In this case, it is not stated that the headquarters of appellant-denomination is in the land concerned herein. This is only one of the properties owned by the denomination. Acquisition of this property does not put the right of the denomination to acquire and hold the property in peril. If its title is proved, it will be given the appropriate compensation, and it can acquire property elsewhere to carry on its operations.

Moreover, it is stated by the Devasthanams that all these religious institutions will be provided with alternate sites, as far as possible, to permit them to carry on their activities.

(Source: AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 357)