Section 22 in THE UTTARAKHAND CHAR DHAM DEVASTHANAM MANAGEMENT Act, 2019
22. All properties belonging to Char Dham Devasthanams to which this Act applies, on the date of commencement of this Act, that are in the possession or under the superintendence of the Government, Zila Panchayat, Zila Parishad, Municipality, property in the Board or any other local authority or in the possession or superintendence of any company, society, organisation, institutions or other person or any committee, superintendent appointed by the Government, shall, on the date on which the Board is or is deemed to have been constituted or members are or are deemed to have been appointed under this Act stand, transferred to the Board and all assets vesting in the Government, local authority or person aforesaid and all liabilities subsisting against such Movement, local authority or person on the said date shall, {devolve on the Chardham and shall be maintained by the Board}:
{Provided that the Board may further acquire land in or around the vicinity of the religious Devasthanam and other places as it would deem proper for its better development, in favour of the Chardham.}[In the case of Dr Subramanian Swamy v. State of Uttarakhand (2020), It was held that the Constitutional validity of Uttarakhand Char Dham Devasthanam Management Act is upheld and Section. 22 of the act is read down to save legislation from being struck down. The Uttarakhand high court (HC) dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) Rajya Sabha (RS) member Subramanian Swamy against the state government’s takeover of the Char Dhams and 51 other shrines through the formation of the Char Dham Devasthanam Management Board. The court ruled that the ownership of the temple properties would vest in Char Dham shrines and power of the Board would be confined only to the administration and management of the properties. Relying on several decisions of the Supreme Court and High Courts, it stated that the words “shall devolve” in Section 22 shall be read as “devolve on the Char Dham and shall be maintained by the board”. Likewise the words “may further acquire land”, in the proviso thereto, shall be read as “may further acquire land on behalf of the Char Dham”. When so read, Section 22 and its proviso would be saved from being struck down as ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution. Hence, challenge to the validity of the 2019 Act, on the ground that it violates Articles 14, 25, 26 and 31-A of the Constitution of India, fails. (https:indiankanoon.org/doc/141571749/, https:www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/hc-upholds-validity-of-uttarakhand-char-dham-devasthanam-management-act-2019)]
