IMPORTANT POINT
A quasi judicial function cannot be delegated.

Headnote:(A) Doctrine – Stare Decisis – Per Incurium Judgment – A judgment can be said to be per incurium when it is passed in forgetfulness or ignorance of a statute operating in that field – While doctrine of stare decisis is crucial to maintain judicial discipline, decisions which are rendered in ignorance of existing statutes and law laid down by Apex Court cannot bind subsequent Benches of this Court. (Para 16)
       (B) Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 – Section 3-A read with Section 2(oo) – Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 – Sections 30 and 33 – Vesting of estate of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, in State Government – Once a property is vested by an Act of legislature, to achieve laudable object, same cannot be divested by enactment of any subsequent general law and vest such property under such law – There is clear conflict between proviso of Section 2(oo) of OEA Act, 1951 and Sections 5 and 30 of Temple Act, 1955 – Section 2(oo) proviso in its entirety is not violative of provisions of Temple Act – It is only first part of proviso which is in contravention of Temple Act, 1955 – If that part of proviso continues to be given effect, Sections 5 and 30 of Temple Act, 1955, by which estates of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri are vested in Temple Committee will lose their meaning – By striking down Section 2(oo) proviso to that extent, both provisions will be able to operate – First part of proviso of Section 2(oo) of OEA Act, 1951 cannot be allowed to sustain – Since Tahsildar performs only an administrative function under OEA Act, 1951 and not a quasi judicial function, he was not competent to pass order of settlement of claim either under Section 6 or 7 or 8 of OEA Act, 1951 – Vesting of suit lands in favour of Math is bad in law – First part of proviso of Section 2(oo) of OEA Act, 1951 struck down. Paras 22 to 25, 31 and 34)
       AIR 1964 SC 1501; AIR 1967 SC 256; (2005) 8 SCC 534; (2014) 4 SCC 434; (1989) 1 SCC 101 ; (1991) 4 SCC 139; (2001) 6 SCC 356; AIR 1966 SC 1332; AIR 1976 SC 1569; (2011) 12 SCC 695; (1978) 4 SCC 16; (2014) 8 SCC 319; AIR 1953 SC 375; AIR 1980 SC 2181; (2014) 8 SCC 319 ; (1961) 3 SCR 185; (1998) 8 SCC 722; AIR 1962 SC 1044 – Relied.
       Facts of Case:
       Present case revolves around the ancient temple of Lord Jagannath of Puri. Lands in question have been accorded status of 'amrutamanohi' properties. Present appeals arise out of impugned judgment and order whereby High Court allowed Writ Petitions filed by Respondents herein and held that as disputed land was earlier settled in name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfat Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das and thus, subsequent settlement made in favour of Temple Managing Committee in OEA Claim Case No. 68/90 was without jurisdiction.
       Findings of Court:
       Striking down of first part of proviso to Section 2(oo) of OEA Act and quashing of notification will be prospective and this judgment shall not be applicable to settled claim of claimants hitherto under provisions of the OEA Act of 1951 in so far as lands of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri are concerned.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions.

2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2009 passed in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000 and other Writ Petitions which were disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 07.07.2009 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the Respondents herein and held that as the disputed land was earlier settled in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfat Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das and thus, the subsequent settlement made in favour of the Temple Managing Committee in OEA Claim Case No. 68/90 was without jurisdiction.

3. As the facts in all the appeals are common, for the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2009, which are stated in brief hereunder:

The present case revolves around the ancient temple of Lord Jagannath of Puri. The lands in question have been accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi' properties. On 18.03.1974, the State Government of Orissa issued a notification Under Section 3A of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "OEA Act, 1951"), whereby the estate of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri vested in the State Government. The vesting notification was challenged by the Temple before the High Court of Orissa in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 233 of 1977. The High Court rejected the claim of the Temple. The same was upheld by this Court vide its judgment in the case of Lord Jagannath through Jagannath Singri Narasingh Das Mahapatra Sridhar Panda and Ors. v. State of Orissa 1989 (1) Suppl. SCC 553. We will advert to this judgment in detail at a later part of this judgment. The State Government of Orissa subsequently issued a notification dated 18.04.1989 and extended the time for filing claims Under Section 8A of the OEA Act, within which the Temple filed Claim Case No. 68 of 1990 for recording the lands in question in favour of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, Marfat Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee. Vide order dated 30.11.1992, the OEA Collector and Tahsildar, Puri observed that the suit lands in question have been recorded in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Srikhetra, and accordingly settled the suit lands in favour of the Temple. In the year 2000, the Respondent-Math filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000, challenging the order of the Tahsildar dated 30.11.1992 on the ground that the lands in question have been accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi' and that they were recorded as Trust Estate as defined Under Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 and that lands had wrongly been settled in favour of the Temple. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2009 set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 30.11.1992 and held as under:

...it is seen in the instant case, the property has been dedicated as Amrutmonahi to Lord Sri Jagannath of Puri and the marfatdar of the property is Mahanta Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das. Thus, the property is attached with a charge of rendering service to Lord Jagannath by using the usufructs thereof as food offering to Lord Jagannath by using the usufructs thereof as food offering to Lord Jagannath. It is further found that on the above analysis, the property cannot be held to be under the control of the administrator of Shri Jagannath Temple but is a trust property attached with a charge and the trustee has to fulfil the wish of the dedicator of the said property by offering the usufructs to Lord Jagannath as food offering. However, since the trustee/marfatdar is the Mahanta of Siddha Math, it cannot be said that the math has absolutely no interest over the said property just because it is recorded as Amrutmonohi. Applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Mahanta Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das (supra) of the Supreme Court, it is seen th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 1215

IMPORTANT POINTA quasi judicial function cannot be delegated.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
A quasi judicial function cannot be delegated.