Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
State of Orissa & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Abani Ballav Dey & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6122 of 2008
Decided on : 02-03-2016
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951-Section 19- The case land belongs to the deity Sri Sri Raghunath Jew, bije Matha Sahi, Tulasipur of Cuttack Town under Bidanasi P.S. marfat Mahant Bijoy Narayan Ramanuja Das which has been reflected in the R.O.R. vide Ext. 1 produced by the petitioners. Admittedly, the deity/institution is public in nature. So, necessary permission/sanction order U/S. 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 is required to sell the case land of the deity for any legal necessity.
Facts of the case:
The Deity and the Math are in a neglected position and for want of funds, no improvements could be made. The Deity is badly in need of money and having regard to the background of litigation, the property needs to be, in any case, disposed of. The Hereditary Trustee of the deity/institution as such has filed the case U/s 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 before the Court of the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in order to sell the landed properties of the deity/institution for legal necessity, which is beneficial for the deity/institution.
Findings of the Court:
The petitioner Math is an old institution. During my tour I have seen the deity/institution as well as the case land located at Tulasipur of Cuttack Town. The Temple and the surrounding pucca houses of the institution are now standing in dilapidated condition which require major repair/renovation and for that purpose huge amount of money is required. The deity/institution has no funds to meet the above expenses. The only way is open to the deity/institution to sell some landed properties. The deity/institution has some cultivable lands which are now under the possession of the the institution. But the case land is now under the possession of the O.Ps since long and the institution is not getting anything from the case land. It will be very expensive on the part of the institution to evict the O.Ps from the case land through litigations. Therefore, in my opinion it will be beneficial for the deity/institution to sell the case land in order to meet the above legal necessity of the deity/institution.
Having regard to the background of the litigation, having regard to the dire necessity for the Deity to dispose of the property, having regard to the fact that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been in occupation of the property since 1956 and that they have constructed their houses in the property, we are of the view that it is in the interest of all concerned to put a quietus to the litigations between the State and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the sale of the property under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act.
Result:
Appeal disposed off accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Kurian, J.
1. The application for intervention is dismissed.
2. Appellant No. 1 State of Orissa is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa in RSA No. 10 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 65 of 2008.
3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we shall extract the short impugned order as under :-
"The appellants and respondent no. 2 have filed a petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC for compromise stating therein that to cut short the long term litigation and for the benefit and improvement of the respondent no. 2 Religious Trust they want to compound the matter. Previously the parties had filed Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006 for recording compromise in the appeal. But the Tahasildar, Cuttack raised objection on the plea that the property under litigation has high market value and the amount contemplated in compromise is very low. Objection was also raised by the Commissioner of Endowments that in absence of the permission of the Commissioner u/s 19 of the OHRE Act, the compromise cannot be effected as the compromise will create stitiban tenancy in favour of the appellants. The prayer for compromise was accordingly, disallowed for want of permission of the Commissioner of endowments u/s 19 of the OHRE Act. The parties, therefore, filed the present petition for compromise indicating inter alia that permission of the Commissioner of endowments has been obtained for the compromise and the amount to be paid by the appellants has been raised to Rupees thirty lakhs. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner of Endowments wherein it is stated that Deputy Commissioner of endowments by successive letters dated 5.2.2008 and 31.3.2008 intimated the respondent No.2 that no permission can be accorded for compromise in the greater interest of the institution. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit that present petition for compromise is not maintainable after the order of rejection in Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006. Reply to this affidavit of the Commissioner of Endowments has been filed by the respondent no. 2 to the effect that the letters of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under Annexures A & B are to be ignored as the Commissioner of Endowments in Memo No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 granted permission to respondent no. 2 to effect compromise in the second appeal.
In this regard, the appellants and respondent no. 2 rely on the order dated 28.4.1989 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa passed in OA No. 171 of 1988-II under Section 19 of the Act, Order No. 7 dated 11.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Endowments in misc. Case No. 17 of 2005 and Memo No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 of the office of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Endowments rely on Memo No. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated 31.3.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to respondent no. 2. In the order in A. No. 171 of 1988 on the prayer of the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission for sale of the lands of the religious institution fixing minimum rate at Rs. 20,000/- per gunth for lands adjoining road and at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per gunth for other lands. In order dated 11.12.2006 of Misc. Case No. 17 of 2005 it is reflected that permission was sought for the compromise, but because it was submitted that the matter does not come within the purview of section 19 of the OHRE Act, the misc. case was dropped and the matter was left to be dealt with in management side. In memo No. 10864 respondent no.2 was permitted to enter into compromise in the second appeal, if he so wants. But thereafter, in Memo nos. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated 13.3.2008 respondent no. 2 was intimated by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments that he cannot be permitted to enter into a compromise in the greater interest of the institution. All these documents show that initially the Commissioner of Endowments had permitted for sale of t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
