J.N.Bhatt
1. Both these writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, involved common and identical questions. Therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The Registry of this Court has reported that both these petitions were directed to be heard along with the Special Civil Application No.3418 of 1980, which came to be disposed of along with other identical matters on being referred to the larger Bench. The Larger Bench of this Court comprising the Hon'ble Chief Justice, D.M.Dharmadhikari, Justice B.C.Patel, and Justice R.K.Abichandani, a sitting Judge of this Court, disposed of Special Civil Application No.3418 of 1980 and other matters on 01.2.2001 and the decision is also reported as 2001 [2] GLR [FB] 1356 equivalent 2001 [2] GLH [FB] 589. Unfortunately, despite the direction to place both these petitions along with the group, the Registry has not been able to identify and locate and consequently the same were not placed before the larger Bench. Since the identical matters have already been disposed of, these two petitions are required to be disposed of in light of the decision of the larger Bench.
3. The larger Bench was referred the following questions formulated by the Division Bench.
[A] Whether Article 26[c] of the Constitution of India, which confers fundamental right to own and acquire movable and immovable property to every religious denomination or nay section thereof, forms part of the basic structure of the Constitution ?
[B] Whether Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition [ Amendment}] Act, 1977 is open to challenge, as the said is placed in the Ninth Schedule ?
[ii] If a statute does not provide for compensation for abolition of rights and is placed in the Ninth Schedule, whether the said Act would be void or whether the validity of the said statute cannot be challenged as provided in Article 318 ?
[iii] What is the effect of Article 300A of the Constitution which does not provide for compensation for abolition or rights over the property, as it only provides that no person can be deprived of his property save by authority of law ?
[C] Even if it is open to challenge, whether Section 9 of the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 provides for compensation for abolition of rights of inamdar which are extinguished as per the provisions of Section 8 of the Gujarat Devsthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 ?
[D] Whether the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narendraprasadji Maharaj Vs. State, 13, G.L.R. 404, required reconsideration ?
4. The Larger Bench has answered the questions formulated by the Division Bench hereasunder:-
[A] The right of a religious denomination to own and acquire property guaranteed under Article 26[c] of the Constitution is not a part of the basic features or structure of the Constitution.
[b] In view of the [placement of the Gujarat DEvsthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 and the Gujarat Devsthan Inams Abolition [ Amendment] Act, 1977 in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution, these Acts, are immune from any challenge on the ground that any provision thereof is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any of the fundamental rights conferred by any provisions of Part-III of the Constitution.
[ii] In view of the protection given by article 31B to the Acts placed in the Ninth Schedule the validity of the said Act cannot be challenged on the ground that it does not provide for compensation for abolition of certain rights.
[iii] The constitutional right to property under Article 300A is not a basic feature or structure of the constitution and no right to claim compensation flows therefrom or from Entry 42 of the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.
[C] [i] The provisions of the Gujarat Devsthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 were not open to any challenge on the ground of inconsistency with any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14, 19 or 31, in view of the said Act being protected under Article 31A of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in Narendraprasadji Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1974 S.C 2098. Moreover, the said Act was also protected against such challenge under Article 31C of the Constitution. In any event, it cannot be challenged on the ground of inconsistency with any fundamental right guaranteed by Part -III of the Constitution, being placed in the Ninth Schedule.
[ii] Even assuming that the said Act was open to such challenge, we hold that section 9 thereof provided for compensation for the extinguishment of all the rights of the Inamdar including the rights extinguished over properties enumerated in Section 8.
[D] The ratio of the decision of this Court in Narendraprasadji Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 13 GLR 404, to the extent it holds that the inamdar's claim for compensation for extinguishment of his right in specific Devsthan lands by reason of operation of section 8, would fall within section 11[1] and not within section 9, which was not put in issue before the Supreme Court, is open to reconsideration by a larger bench and requires to be reconsidered. We hold that section 9 is an omnibus provision for compensating all the extinguished rights of an inamdar in the Devasthan Inam including the rights extinguished in the property covered by section
8. We also hold that in view of the protective umbrellas of Article 31A, 31B, and 31C available to the said Act and the Amendment Act, the question about the quantum, method or manner of compensation for the rights extinguished under the Act becomes insignificant.
5. The petitioners are the Cooperative Housing Societies registered under the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. The basis of both these petitions is the challenge against the Gujarat Devsthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969, the provision contained in Section 8 of the said Act and also the provisions of the said Amendment Act of 1977 contending that they are unconstitutional, ultra vires and illegal. The larger Bench has held in favour of the constitutionality and validity of the said provisions. It is also held that the said Act as well as the Amendment Act has been fully protected by each of the provisions contained in Articles 31A, 31B and 31C of the Constitution and are immune from any challenge on the ground of inconsistency with any fundamental right and they do not violate any basis feature of the constitution. The group of petitions, therefore, came to be rejected. Obviously, both these petitions are squarely and directly covered by the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench and consequently, these petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged in each of the petition with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier in each of the petition shall stand vacated.
