AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.D. Koshal, J.—This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing that part of the scheme of consolidation of holdings in village Jandwala Hanuwanta, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepore (now Tehsil and District Bhatinda) which makes provision for a temple in a portion of the Panchayat land. Although numerous grounds were taken in the petition in support of the prayer of the Petitioners, Mr. M.M. Punchhi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has restricted his argument before me to only one of them, namely, that a temple did not fall within the definition of the phrase "common purpose" as contained in Clause (bb) of Section 2 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1943. (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The relevant part of that clause is reproduced below:
In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context :
(a) ....
(b) ....
(bb) ''common purpose'' means any purpose in relation to any common need, convenience or benefit of the village and includes the following purposes:
(i) ....
(ii) ....
(iii) ....
public places of religious or charitable nature and
(iv) ....
It is urged by Mr. Punchhi that the temple being a religious place of worship for the Hindus only, its provision could not be regarded as a "common purpose". He has also argued that even if it were otherwise, there was no need for the temple inasmuch as three temples already existed in the village.
In view of the provisions of Clause (bb) quoted above, which specifically extend the meaning of the phrase'' "common purpose'''' to public places of religious and charitable nature, the contention of Mr. Punchhi must be turned down. Once the temple is shown to be a public place of religious nature which, it is conceded, it is, the extending clause beginning, with the words "and includes the following purposes" at once makes the temple a "common purpose" and it need not further be shown that a temple would in the ordinary dictionary meaning of the phrase "common purpose" fall within its ambit or that it fulfilled a need common to all the inhabitants of the village.
In the above view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel''s fee Rs. 100.