Mandir Pashupati Nath Maha Dev vs The State of Punjab and Another

Daya Krishan Mahajan, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Mandir Pashupati Nath Maha Dev, Dera Sarwan Nath, situate in village Pehwa, tehsil Kaithal, district Karnal.

This temple owns land measuring 72 Standard Acres and 7 1/2 Units. Under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the Collector has declared 42 Standard Acres and 7 1/2 Units land as surplus. It may be mentioned that the entire land was under the cultivation of the temple. The temple, dissatisfied with this order, has preferred a petition through Digamber Sharan Puri, Mukhtar-i-am.

The short contention advanced by Mr. Shamair Chand, learned Counsel for the temple, is that the temple cannot be said to be a ''person'' and, therefore, no land belonging to a temple can be declared surplus under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. Section 2(1) of this Act defines ''landowner'' as a person as defined in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. In the Punjab Land Revenue Act, Section 3(2) defines ''landowner'' as follows:

''Land owner'' does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue, but does include a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm, under this Act for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear and every other person not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned, who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate.

The contention of the learned Counsel is that a temple being not a person is, therefore, not a ''landowner'' and, therefore, no land belonging to a temple can be declared as surplus. I am unable to agree with this contention. ''Person'' is defined in Section 2(4) of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, as under:

''person'' shall include any company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

This definition of a ''person'' is very wide and is an inclusive definition. In Stroud''s Judicial Dictionary at page 2167, it is stated that the word ''person'' may well include both a natural person and an artificial person. If I were to accept Mr. Shamair Chand''s contention, then no relationship of landlord and tenant can ever come into being and nor can a temple be a landowner, a result which cannot be countenanced. I do not think the extreme contention urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is sound and, therefore, it must be rejected. In my view, the ''person'' will include a temple, unless the context shows otherwise. There is nothing in the Act which gives an indication to the contrary. That being so, this petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.