LexANANT PRASAD LAKSHMINIVAS GENERIWAL versus STTE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 T ravancCJre Ruibtr r/ Tt11 C6. Ltd. v ::i·t~te of J(~!nla Raghubar Dt1yal, /. 191;2 .Novtmlcr, 2. 844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. of agri.cultural income from tea plantations and from rubber plantations is therefore based on good reasons. Vve hold that the provisions of Explanation 2 are not discriminatory against agricultural income from rubber plantations. W c therefore see no forcr in these petitions and, accordingly, tlismiss the>n with costs, one set. Petition8 dinm:ssed. /\NAN f PRASAD LAKSHMINIV AS GENERIWAL 1), ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS (With connected Petition) (B. P. SINHA, C. ]., P. B. GA.!ENJJRAGAJ>KAn, K. N. '"' ANCH(JO, K. c. D.\S GUPTA and]. C. SHAH, .JJ.) Religiow; Public Trust-Regisl<at:on-Notice on tra8tee~ F'ailure of trustee to app~a.r-Orfkr of remfJval, 1f ultra v1res- Constitutional t'alidity of cnactu1,fnt-Trust in one ,') 1taie- l)roperty in unother-l'enue of regi8frat/on-H11de1«1hol liJndow- mr.nts Regulation, 1.940, ss. 3, 9. 'fhe appellant, who was also the petitioner in the \Vrit petition, clairned to be the sole hereditary trustee and mut\valli of the ancient temple of Shri Sitararn Maharaj i:1 Hyderabad. For the n1aintenance of that temple certain village:; in 13e-rar had beed granted by the N1zam. The appellant's father had g-Ot the temple registered as a public trust nnder s. 7(1) uf the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act, 1951, in June, J9:i:i. i s.c.:R. SUPREME COURT RE.1-'0:Rts 845 On December 31, 1957, the appellant was served with a notice by the Director of Endowments, Hyderabad, to have the temple registered under the Hyderabad Endowments Regulations, 1940. He objected that the temple having already been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Act, was not liable to be Registered under the Regulations and the State of Andhra Pradesh had no jurisdiction over the endowment and its pro- perty. He moved the High Court under Art. 226 challenging the notice on various grounds. The High Court rejected the petition, and upheld the validity of the notice. He appealed. After the High Court had dismissed the writ petition, the Director of Endowments passed two orders directing that the supervision of the temple be taken over under r. 1 79 of the Endowment Rules and that the management of the temple do vest in the Director of Endowments, Hyderabad. The appellant then filed the writ petition in this Court against these two orders challenging the validity of the Regulations and the various rules framed thereunder as being repugnant to Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution. His further contention was that the orders could not be made even under the Regulations. Held, that the trust being situate in tlyderabad, the Hyderabad f,ndowment Regulations applied not only to the temple situated at .Hyderabad but also to its property situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, that the trust had already been registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act could make no difference. Sections 2 (4) and 3 of this Act clearly showed that a public trust contemplated by it must be situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. State of Bihar v. Smt. Gharusi/,a Dasi, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 601, applied. State of Bihar v. Bhab<Jpritananda Ojlta, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 624, referred to. It was not correct to say that because of the application of the Charitable Endowments Act, 1890, and the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920, to Hyderabad, then a Part B State the Hyderabad Endowment Regulationi, 1940, must be deem~d to have been repealed by operation of s.6 of the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951. The former defil\ilely excluded public religious trusts such as the present one and the latter, bys. 3, was confined to a very limited purpose. Nor could the difference in tl>e two laws y•lating to public religious arid charitable trusts ! •vailing in lie two parts of 1962 Anant Pras•d Lakshminivt'lr Gtneriwal v. Stal1 of Andhra Pr«iesh 1962 Anant Prasad Lakthminiua~· Generiwal v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh 846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1963] SUPP the Andhra State, one formerly part of the A State of Madras and the other of the B State Hyderabad, be said to be discrimi- natory. J)ifference such as this occ-1sioned as it wa5 by histori- cal reasons could be no ground for striking down the la\vs u11der Art. 14 of the Constitution. Hhaiyalal Shu/;la v. State of Jfai.l!tya i'rcule.>h, [1%2] Supp. 2 S.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.