1952 (12) TMI 48 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the mutation process without notice to petitioners.
2. Ownership of the lands in question.
3. Applicability of Farman-i-Shahi.
4. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19.
5. Appropriateness of relief under Article 226.
6. Discretionary nature of relief under Article 226.
7. Adequacy of alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Mutation Process Without Notice to Petitioners:
The petitioners contended that the procedure adopted by the revenue authorities to substitute the names of the deras in place of their names without any notice was illegal. The court held that the entire proceedings, from the Patwari's reports to the final orders by the Tehsildar, were illegal. The Tehsildar sanctioned the mutations without verifying if the lands were attached to the deras, as mandated by the Farman-i-Shahi. The court emphasized that the revenue authorities should have conducted an inquiry to determine the attachment of lands to the deras before making any changes in the revenue records.

2. Ownership of the Lands in Question:
The petitioners claimed that the lands were their properties and did not belong to the deras. The court noted that the entries in the revenue records before the mutations were sanctioned indicated that the petitioners were the owners of the land. The petitioners were not described as mahants but as disciples of previous owners. The court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the lands pertained to or were attached to the deras.

3. Applicability of Farman-i-Shahi:
The respondents argued that the Farman-i-Shahi had the force of law and applied to the petitioners' cases. The court acknowledged that the Farman-i-Shahi had the force of law in the erstwhile Patiala State and continued to apply after the formation of the Union. However, the court held that the lands in question were not covered by the Farman-i-Shahi as there was no indication that they pertained to or were attached to the deras.

4. Violation of Fundamental Rights Under Article 19:
The petitioners argued that the new mutations deprived them of their fundamental right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property under Article 19 of the Constitution. The court conceded the existence of this right but held that the mutations did not violate it. The court stated that revenue entries and mutations are evidence of title but do not confer or take away title. The petitioners' right to hold and dispose of the property remained intact despite the mutations.

5. Appropriateness of Relief Under Article 226:
The respondents contended that the petitioners should seek redress through civil suits rather than writ petitions. The court examined the discretionary nature of relief under Article 226 and the principles guiding its exercise. The court held that the petitioners' cases involved public importance and affected other mahants, making it appropriate to grant relief under Article 226. The court also noted that requiring the petitioners to file civil suits would impose undue hardship on them.

6. Discretionary Nature of Relief Under Article 226:
The court reiterated that the powers under Article 226 are discretionary and should be exercised sparingly. The court emphasized that relief should be granted only in clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and no other adequate remedy is available. The court found that the petitioners' cases met these criteria and warranted relief under Article 226.

7. Adequacy of Alternative Remedies:
The court considered whether the alternative remedy of filing civil suits was specific and adequate. The court concluded that while the remedy was specific, it was not adequate due to the public importance of the issue and the potential hardship to the petitioners. The court held that the petitioners' prayer for relief under Article 226 should not be refused based on the availability of an alternative remedy.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions against the second respondent, quashed the orders sanctioning the mutations, and issued a writ prohibiting the second respondent from giving effect to the mutations. The petitions against the government were dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.