BISHAN DAS AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 19-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l 
I 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BISHAN DAS AND OTHERS 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. 
MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
69 
Fundamental Rights, Infringement of-Dharmasala constrnct· 
ed with Joint family funds on Government land with Government's 
permissio .. -]oint family members bona fide in possession and 
management-Evictio" by executive action-Constitutiona/ity-
Constitution of India, Arts. r4, 19, 31. 
One Ramjidas built a dharmasala, a temple and shops 
appurtenant thereto with the joint family funds on Government 
land with the permission of the Government. 
After his death 
the other members who were in management and possession of 
those properties were dispossessed by the State, its officers and 
the local Municipality which was put in possession. The peti-
tioners applied to the Punjab High Court !or the issue of appro-
priate writs under Ar.t. 226 of the Constitution, but the petition 
was dismissed on the preliminary ground that the matter in-
volved disputed questions of fact. An appeal against that order 
was also dismissed on the same ground. The petitioners then 
moved this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution. Their case 
was that they had been evicted without authority of law and in 
violation of the Constitution. It was urged on behalf of the 
State that the property being trust property built on Govern-
ment land, the petitioners were mere trespassers liable to be 
ejected with the minimum amount of force and relying on the 
decision of this Court in Sohal Lal v. The Union of India, it was 
further urged that redress by way of writs was wholly inappro-
priate in disputes on questions of fact and title. 
Held, that on the admitted facts of the case the petitioners 
could not be trespassers in respect of the dharmasala, temple 
and shops, nor the State the owner of the property, irrespective 
of whether it was a trust, public or private. 
The maxim, that what is annexed to the soil goes with the 
soil, is not an absolute rule of Jaw in this country, and if the 
State wanted to remove the constructions or resume the land, it 
should have taken appropriate legal action for the purpose. 
Thakoor Chunder Parmanick v. Ramdhone Bhuttacharfee, 
(1866) 6 W.R. 228, Lala Beni Ram v. Kundan Lall, (1899) L.R. 
26 LA. 58, and Narayan Das Khettry v. ]atindranath, (1927) L.R. 
45 LA. 218, referred to. 
Even if Ramjidas was no more than a trustee, that would not 
give the State or its officers the right to take the law into their 
April r9. 
Bishan Das 
v. 
State of Punjab 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
own hands and the argument that the petitioners were tres-
passers and could be removed by an executive order must be 
rejected not merely as specious but highly dangerous in its 
implication. 
It was not necessary in this case to determine disputed 
questions of fact, nor as regards the precise rights of the peti-
tioners. It was enough that they were bona fide in possession 
of the property and could not be removed except by authority 
of law. 
The executive action taken in the present case must be 
deprecated as being destructive of the basic principles of the 
rule of law; it was a highly discriminatory and autocratic act 
which deprived a person of the possession of property without 
reference to any law or legal authority. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 24 of 
1960. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
C. B. Aggarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the peti-
tioners. 
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for respondents Nos. I, 2 
and 4. 
K. L. Mehta and K. L. Hathi, for respondent No. 3. 
1961. 
April 19. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
s. K. Das J. 
S. K. DAS, J.-This is a writ petition under Art. 32 
of the Constitution in respect of a dharmasala, an 
adjoining temple and some appurtenant shops, stand-
ing on a piece of land near the rail way station at Bar-
nala, district Sangrur, in the State of Punjab. The 
petitioners are sons, grand-sons and daughter of one 
Lala Ramji Das, and widow of one Tara Chand, a 
predeceased son of Lala Ramji Das. 
The case of the petitioners in short is that Lala 
Ramji Das, who died in 1957, had built the dharma-
sala, temple and shops out of the funds of the joint 
family consisting of himself and the petitioners near 
about the year 1909 and during his life-time managed 
the dharmasala, temple and shops on behalf of the 
jo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.