BHURI NATH AND ORS. versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 138 · Decided: 10-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHURI NATH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ORS. 
JANUARY 10, 1997 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Jammu & Kashmir Shri Mata Vais/mo Devi Shrine Act, 1988: Sections 
19 and 2, 4 to 14-Management, administration and govemance of Shri Mata 
Vaishno Devi Shrine and Sl11ine Fund-Vested in Shri Mata Vaishno Devi 
C Board-Offerings made by pilfi1ims to Slui Mata Vais/1110 Devi Shrin~Right 
of Ba1idars to receiv~Extinguished--No provision in Act for compensation 
to Balidw:1·for extinguishment of such 1ight-Held : S. 19 which extinguished 
such right of Ba1idars not rendered ultra vires Arts. 19(1)([) and 31 which 
eve11 after repeal were still available to residents of J&K-Governor exercised 
D his statutory power under the Act as ex officio Chainnan of the Board and 
not as executive head of State with aid and advice of Council of Minister~Act 
regulated management, administration and govemance of Shrine and misuse 
of power or mismanagement by Board could not be apprehended-Act effected 
transfer of affairs of Shrine from Dhamiarth Trnst to Board and in the process 
E it incidentally regulated right to collect offerings-Board not a "controlled" 
Corporation under A1t. 12 and, therefore, not a "Corporation owned or con-
trolled by State" withi11 mea11ing of Art. 31 (2-A), the degree of control required 
in Cl. (2-A) missing in the Act-Hence, light to collect offerings did not vest 
in Stat~There was 110 acquisition or transfer of ownership of right to collect 
off e1ings to State under the Act-There[ ore, absence of provision for compen-
F sation to Baiidars would not render S. 19 violative of Arts. 19(1)([) and 
31(2}-Constitution of India, 1950, A1ts. 19(1)([) & 31(2) (as applicable to 
State of J&K), 31(2-A) and 12. 
Section 5( 1) proviso and S.9-Board-Constitution of-Dissolution or 
supersession of Board-To be reco11stituted within three month~In the 
G inteTTegnum between dissolution or supersession and reconstitution, Govemor 
exercised po.vers of Board-In a situation when Govemor was Non-Hindu, 
govemance and management vested in executive govemment in cabinet rys-
tem under tlte Co11stitution and, a Minister and/or for that matter, the Chief 
Minister professing Islam would be in offic~Held : In such circumstances, 
H functions under the Act could not be discharged by such Chief Minister/Min-
138 
) 
) 
B. NATII v. STATE 
139 
ister under the Act. 
Section 5(1) proviso and S. 9-Board-Dissolution and supersession 
of-Procedure-Power of Govemo1~Held : Reconstitution of Board should 
be within pe1iod of three months-If Govemor was non-Hindu, he would get 
management done through Chief Executive who would always be a Hindu. 
Constitution of I11dia, 1950: Articles 152, 153, 370, 367 a11d Schedule I Item 
15. 
Govemor of J&K-Executive power of-Held : Pait VI Chapter II 
applicable---Constitutio11 of Jammu & Kashmir, Ss. 21 and 57-General 
clauses Act, 1897, Ss. 3(23) and 61. 
State/Union-Executive power of Exercise of power by President/Gover-
A 
B 
c 
nor as executive head with aid and advice of Council of Ministers and 
exercise of power in official capacity as President/Govemor--Distinction be-
tween-Held : Unless President/Govemor was required by" Constitution to 
exercise power in his individual discretion, exercise of executive power, which D 
was coextensive with legislative power, was with aid and advice of Council of 
Ministers. 
Article JI-Applicability of-To State of J&K-'Acquisition'-In-
gredients of-Held: Alt. 31 applicable to State of J&K even after its deletion E 
by 44th Amendment-'Acquisition' must be for public purpose and right, title 
ad interest in property coupled with possession thereof must vest in State or 
beneficiary-Abolition or extinction did not amount to vestinfj"Person 
deprived of property must be entitled to compensatioll-Land Acquisition Act, 
1894. 
Article 31(2-A) (as applicable to State of J&K-'Corporation owned or 
controlled by the 'State'-Meaning of-Held: Word 'controlled' in the context 
meant total control to the extent of ownership by the State. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Presumption-Held: In favour of constitutionality of a statut~Burden 
to prove contra was on person challenging validity of statutes. 
Words and Phrases : ''Acquisition''-Meaning of-In the context of 
F 
G 
Alt.31 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
H 
··~ 
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
"Corporation owned or controlled by the State''-Meaning of-In the 
context
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.