Allahabad High Court
Radha Soami Satsang Beas vs Union Of India And 2 Ors on 26 February, 2015
Author: B. Amit Sthalekar
Bench: B. Amit Sthalekar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Court No. - 27 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 67796 of 2014 Petitioner :- Radha Soami Satsang Beas Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Ors Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritesh Khatri,Kartikeya Saran Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Satish Kumar Rai ************************ Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 30.9.2014 passed by the Defence Estate Officer, Agra Circle, Agra Cantt. rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for withdrawing the letter dated 12.6.2013 and restricting the petitioner from gathering large number of persons on the premises in dispute for continuation of Satsang/entering the domestic/residential Bungalow as well as construction of boundary wall and repair work of the premises in question.
The petitioner is stated to be a religious and charitable Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The property in dispute is stated to be a Bungalow having outhouses and other construction beside a large open area. The said property is surrounded by a boundary wall which is somewhat in a dilapidated condition. The Bungalow is being used for the purposes of holding Satsang. It is stated that since the boundary wall is in a poor condition and broken at places allowing stray animals to enter on the premises, the Society on coming into possession of the property started construction work of the boundary wall. It was at this time that the Cantonment authorities came and tried to prevent the members of the Society from constructing the boundary wall or repairing the same. The petitioner thereupon filed a civil suit no. 382 of 2013 for injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property and the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra by order dated 18.3.2013 granted the injunction restraining the respondents from interfering or disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the suit property in any manner and also restraining the respondents from demolishing the boundary wall on the premises in dispute.
It is stated that on 12.3.2013 itself a notice was served upon the petitioner's Society under Section 5-A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971) (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner challenged the said notice in a writ petition no. 24801 of 2013 and on 3.5.2013, the Court was pleased to grant an interim order staying the impugned notice dated 12.3.2013. Thereupon the respondents issued a fresh notice dated 12.6.2013 addressed to Shri Deepak Poptani and Shri Ajay Sethi as caretaker of the property on behalf of Radha Soami Satsang Beas in respect of the Old Grant Bungalow No. 33. The language of this notice would show that the allegation against the petitioner's Society was of whitewashing the boundary wall for purpose of future use of open land for construction purposes. This notice was challenged by the petitioner's Society alongwith Deepak Poptani and Ajay Sethi in writ petition no. 36425 of 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court by order dated 9.7.2013 with the following observations:
"Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter, we dispose of this petition by giving following directions;
1: Petitioner as indicated above, may file reply before the competent authority within a period of 15 days.
2: If reply is filed, it will be for the competent authority to decide the same, in accordance with law.
On the facts, this Court directs that till final decision is taken in the matter, petitioners without causing any nuisance as being suggested by the respondents and without use of Mike/Loudspeaker can make arrangement for holding religious deliberations peacefully.
It is further provided that petitioners will not change the nature of premises in any manner or cause damage to the trees etc. It is made clear that while deciding the matter, the competent authority will apply his independent mind and discretion and, he is supposed to pass speaking order.
With the aforesaid direction this petition is disposed of."
In the meantime the earlier writ petition no. 24801 of 2013 came to be finally dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 30.9.2013 with the observation that whether the order is to be passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board or by the Defence Estate Officer and other allied matter can be raised by the petitioner before the Estate Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner's Society filed Special Appeal No. 1708 of 2013 and the Division Bench by its judgement and order dated 8.11.2013 modified the order of the learned Single Judge to the extent that the finding with regard to the validity of the notice under Section 5-A (2) of the Act, 1971 will not be treated as conclusive against the petitioner and the objection of the petitioner that no permission was required to encircle the boundary wall with regard to "Unoccupied Grant" and "Open Grant" in terms of the Government Grant No. 179 shall also be considered.
It is not in dispute between the parties that the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971 are still pending. In the meantime the impugned order has been passed by the Defence Estate Officer purportedly in compliance of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9.7.2013. It has been submitted by Shri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's Society even though the petitioner's Society had purchased the property in question from its erstwhile owners. Copy of the sale deed dated 1.3.2013 has been filed by the respondents as Annexure-1 to their counter affidavit and the facts to that effect are not disputed between the parties. The contention of Shri Navin Sinha is that in any case the impugned order dated 30.9.2014 has been passed without giving any notice although it was well known to the authority that the order dated 9.7.2013 had been passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 36425 of 2013 of which the petitioner-Radha Soami Stasang Beas alongwith two others was a party and even otherwise the directions given in the Court's order dated 9.7.2013 were required to be complied by the petitioner.
It is also submitted by Shri Navin Sinha that the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Act, 1971 are still pending and the petitioner's Society has been directed not to hold Satsang in the premises or to construct or repair the boundary wall. It is also submitted that correspondence which has been filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition was by Shri Deepak Poptani on behalf of Radha Soami Satsang Beas addressed to the Defence Estate Officer and therefore the Defence Estate Officer was through out aware that the Radha Soami Satsang Beas was in occupation of the Bungalow in dispute and was a necessary party to be heard before the impugned order could be passed. Infact the section 5-A notice was also given by the respondents to Shri Deepak Poptani.
Lastly, it has been submitted by Shri Navin Sinha that in any case the respondents cannot restrict the petitioner's Society from holding Satsang in the premises in question as the right to hold the Satsang is a right which flows from Article 25 of the Constitution of India which guarantees freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion and any restriction placed thereon would be violative of the religious freedom of the petitioner's Society and its members and all other persons professing or having faith in the Radha Soami Satsang philosophy of religion.
Shri Ashok Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Bungalow in question alongwith the open land appurtenant thereto was held on an Old Grant originally in favour of one Thakur Das and thereafter by virtue of law of inheritance by Shri Ram Narain son of Thakur Das and Smt. Veena wife of Shri Raj Narain. The land of the said Bungalow belongs to the Union of India and is governed by the provisions of the Government Grant Order No. 179 of 1836. It is further submitted that Radha Soami Satsang Beas has allegedly purchased the land from Shri Raj Narain and Smt. Veena through a sale deed dated 1.3.2013 but the said sale deed has not been filed with the Defence Estate Officer for the purposes of mutation of names in the extract of the General Land Register. In the General Land Register dated 12.3.2013, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-3 to the counter affidavit, Shri Raj Narain and Smt. Veena continue to be shown as Holders of Occupancy Rights under the Old Grant. It is further submitted by Shri Ashok Mehta that the land cannot be purchased by the petitioner's Society nor could it have been sold by Shri Raj Narain and Smt. Veena in view of the provisions of paragraph 6 of General Orders by Governor General-In Council No. 179 dated 12.9.1836, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit. It is further submitted that if the petitioner was a subsequent purchaser from Shri Raj Narain and Smt. Veena they ought to have taken permission from the Defence Estate Officer before executing any such sale deed and having failed to do so the same was a void document and could not have been registered under the Registration Act and would not confer any authority and title upon the petitioner's Society. Shri Ashok Mehta however could not dispute the proceedings under section 5-A of the Act, 1971 which are still pending nor could he dispute the fact that the injunction granted by the Civil Court on 18.3.2013 still holds good but he sought to submit that in the civil suit it was the Cantonment Board which has been made a party and not the Defence Estate Officer. It was not submitted by Shri Ashok Mehta that in several proceedings before this Court for example W.P. No. 12897 of 2008 (Cantonment Board, Varanasi Vs. State of U.P. and others) this Court in its order dated 28.8.2010 has referred to the "Defence Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board, Varanasi" (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit). In another order dated 22.12.2010 passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 74227 of 2010, Virendra Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. and others again the High Court has referred to the "Defence Estate Officer of the Cantonment Board" (Annexure-6 to the counter affidavit). It is submitted by him that the Defence Estate Officer is responsible for the management of all the land under the Cantonment Board which fall in the category of B-3. He has referred to the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and in Rule 6 Clause (iii) B-3 land has been defined as land held by any private persons under the provisions of these Rules or which is held or may be presumed to be held under the provisions of the Cantonment Code of 1899 or 1912 or under any Executive Orders previously in force. He submits that since the Bungalow and land appurtenant thereto being the land in dispute was held by private persons therefore this lands falls in Class B-3 of lands. He has also referred to Rule 9 of the 1937 Rules sub rule (5) of which states that the management of all Clause "B-3" land and Clause "B-4" land be entrusted to the Military Estate Officer. He submits that the nomenclature of the Military Estate Officer has now been changed to Defence Estate officer and therefore by virtue of Clause 5 to Rule 9 of 1937 Rules it is the Defence Estate Officer who is in the management of the lands falling in Class B-3. The submission therefore is that the Defence Estate Officer was a necessary party to any such suit in which the injunction has been granted by the Civil Judge on 18.3.2013. But at the same time Shri Ashok Mehta very fairly stated that it was not and is not the intention of the respondents to disobey or flout or the act in contravention of the injunction granted by the Civil Judge dated 18.3.2013 merely because the Defence Estate Officer was not impleaded in the said suit.
On the question of imposing a restriction on the right of the petitioner's Society and its members and all others professing the religious philosophy of Radha Soami Satsang Beas to hold Satsang and religious discourses on the premises in question, Shri Ashok Mehta submitted that as a general policy the Defence Estate Officer is opposed to any such congregation of large number of people within the Cantonment area. However, when a specific question was put to him as to whether any restriction has been placed upon various religious sites within the various Cantonment areas by way of policy having universal applicaton and that the Cantonment Board or the Defence Estate Officer has any reasonable objection to the persons professing their religious faith collectively in any premises belonging to the Cantonment Board whether falling under the management of the Defence Estate Officer or otherwise, he could not dispute that there are religious sites such as churches, mosques and temples in the Cantonment area and there was no restriction placed upon persons professing or practising their individual religious faiths at these religious sites. In any case, he could not give any explanation as to how the congregation of the members of Radha Soami Satsang Beas or members professing religious philosophy of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas create any hinderence or nuisance in the management of the Cantonment Board or the land falling under the management of the Defence Estate officer. What is noteworthy is that in the impugned order it has been held that the Bungalow in question situated in the Cantonment area is held only for residential purposes and not for religious purposes and that the continuation of Satsang with a gathering of thousands of people in such premises is in violation of the Government Grant No. 179 of 1836.
The question still remains that even though the premises in question have been given to the occupier for residential purposes but whether an undefined restriction can be imposed upon the petitioner or its members or persons professing religious faith in the Radha Soami Satsang Beas to hold Satsang. Article 25 of the Constitution reads as under:
"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion. - (1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus."
Clause (2)(a) of the Article gives liberty to the State to regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. The respondents have not been able to show as to how the restriction imposed by the impugned order on the petitioner not to hold Satsang or discourses falls within or qualifies as a reasonable restriction to justify the applicability of Clause (2) of Article 25 of the Constitution of India nor could they point out that such a restriction is a reasonable restriction. The terms and conditions of the grant of lease under the government Grant No. 179 of 1836 cannot be rested upon as a defence to restrict freedom of religion and its practice guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Sri Navin Sinha, learned senior counsel in fact has undertaken before the court that if the members of the petitioner's Society and persons professing faith in the religious teachings of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas or any other person who wants to attend Satsang or listen to religious discourses held on the premises in question the petitioner's Society shall hold the Satsang or religious discourses without the use of any mike or loudspeaker. He further undertakes that persons who come in their own vehicle shall not park their vehicles on the public road so as to obstruct the movement of traffic within the cantonment area; such vehicle shall be parked within the premises of the Bungalow in question. He further undertakes that the Bungalow in question and the open land appurtenant thereto shall not be used for commercial purposes and shall continue to be used purely for residential purposes.
Be that as it may, as already been held the respondents have not been able to show how and in what manner the restriction imposed upon the petitioner's society to hold religious Satsang or religious discourses can be said to be a reasonable and valid restriction within the meaning of Clause 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution of India and therefore in my opinion the impugned order does not stand the test of reasonableness as laid down in Article 25 of the Constitution of India and therefore must necessarily be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The respondents also have not been able to show how many trees or other flora were standing in the premises in question and how many trees have been destroyed by the respondents, therefore this part of the order so far as the destruction of trees and greenery in the area are concerned is based upon pure hypothetical assumptions and not supported by material on record. .
For reasons aforesaid the writ petition stands allowed, but with the condition that the petitioner's society or its members or persons professing faith in the Radha Soami Satsang Beas while holding Satsang or religious discourses shall not use mike or loudspeaker nor will they allow any vehicle to be parked on any public road within the cantonment area so as to obstruct the movement of traffic in the cantonment area and all such vehicles shall be parked only within the premises in dispute and it will be open for the respondents to remove any such vehicle which may be parked on the road in contravention of this order.
It is also made clear that none of the observations made above shall be construed as a pronouncement upon the right or title of the petitioner over the property in dispute and shall abide by any final order which may be passed in the pending proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.
Dated: 26th, February, 2015.
O.K./N.Tiwari.