1. Alienation of immovable trust property belonging to a deity — Sanction granted under Section 19, Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 — Sale to tenant challenged by intervenors. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1024
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
K. ARJUN DAS – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9576 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 9577 OF 2010
Decided On : 17-09-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Sale deed of immovable property can be nullified only in proper proceedings and not by making higher public offer in a proceeding under Article 226/227, Constitution of India.
Sale deed of immovable property can be nullified only in proper proceedings and not by making higher public offer in a proceeding under Article 226/227, Constitution of India.
Subject
Property Law - Religious Endowments
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 - Section 19 - Part of trust property sold to appellant-tenant for last 40 years - Statutory procedure duly followed - No error. (Para 29)
(b) Constitution of India - Article 226/227 - High Court not appreciating the concurrent findings of Single Judge and the State Government - Not sustainable. (Para 30)
(c) Administration of justice - Part of land sold to appellant as per procedure - Respondents 4 and 5 interested in whole piece of land - Mere intervenors having no stake in the land - Instead of challenging the sale deed making a public offer of higher price - Lucrative offer just to nullify the registered sale deed - Not permissible. (Para 31, 32)
(d) Property law - Sale deed - Can be nullified only in proper proceedings - Not by making higher public offer in a proceeding under Article 226/227, Constitution of India. (Para 31)
Facts of the case:
One Sunaram Sabat on behalf of the deity Sri Rama Laxman Sita Swamy Bije at P.O. Luchapada, District Ganjam filed an application under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951seeking permission for sale of Ac. 4.255 decimals of land belonging to the deity.
The Commissioner Endowments fixed Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as upset price and accorded permission for sale. The appellant being in possession of the subject land, the Commissioner Endowments considered it appropriate to offer first choice to purchase subject land at the rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and in case he fails to purchase, the subject land be put to public auction fixing Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as the upset price.
The sale deeds were executed and registered in favour of the appellant in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 2.019 decimals on payment of Rs. 20.19 lakhs on 2nd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 respectively.
Respondent no. 8 (Chinmaya Mohapatra) being a person interested filed appeal before the State Government on 20th September, 2005 against the order of the Commissioner Endowments dated 22nd February, 2005 and simultaneously the State Government also suo motu initiated the proceedings to revisit the procedure adopted by the Commissioner Endowments and in the pending proceedings, respondent nos. 4 and 5 (Lokesh Patro and Debendranath Patro) filed their intervention application, inter alia, stating that they are interested in a piece of land admeasuring Ac. 0.619 decimals for which they are prepared to pay Rs. 30 lakhs per acre.
The State Government confirmed the order of the Commissioner Endowments. However, it further directed that with regard to the remaining Ac. 2.206 decimals of land, the same may be sold by public auction.
The order of the State Government came to be challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 who were intervenors in the proceedings in a writ petition inter alia, on the ground that the present appellant was not the tenant and they were willing to offer the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre for the subject land.
The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to go ahead for public auction of the remaining land admeasuring Ac. 2.206 decimals after adopting the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1951.
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the LPA and directed the Commissioner Endowments to put the total land as prayed for public auction at the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre which was offered by respondent nos. 4 and 5 and in case the property fails to fetch Rs. 25 lakhs per acre, respondent nos. 4 & 5 (original writ petitioners) shall be responsible to purchase the property @ Rs. 25 lakhs per acre and in the event of non-deposit, the District Collector shall recover the said amount as land revenue.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeals allowed and disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mr. Rajiv S. Roy, Adv. Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Abhijit S. Roy, Adv. A. Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Jayshree Saha, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Babita Panigrahy, Adv. Mr. Satya Narayan Padhi, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mr. Rajiv S. Roy, Adv. Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Abhijit S. Roy, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mr. Rajiv S. Roy, Adv. Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Abhijit S. Roy, Adv. A. Chatterjee, Adv. Mrs. Jayshree Saha, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Babita Panigrahy, Adv. Mr. Satya Narayan Padhi, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, AOR Mr. Rajiv S. Roy, Adv. Mrs. Soma Mullick, Adv. Mr. Abhijit S. Roy, Adv. Mr. Sebat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Validity of sale to tenant at fixed price — Whether registered sale deeds can be nullified based on higher subsequent offers by intervenors. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
3. Commissioner followed statutory procedure for valuation and sanction — Registered sale deeds cannot be nullified under supervisory jurisdiction without evidence of fraud or illegality. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
4. Registered sale deeds executed following statutory sanction under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, cannot be nullified solely on the basis of higher subsequent offers. (Para 31 , 33 )
5. Appeals allowed — Judgment of the Division Bench set aside — Registered sale deeds upheld. (Para 35 )
6. What is the statutory requirement for alienating immovable trust property under the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951?
No transfer by exchange, sale, mortgage, or lease exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to a religious institution is valid or operative unless sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution. (Para 25 , 26 )
7. Can a registered sale deed executed under statutory sanction be nullified based on a higher offer by a third party?
No. A registered sale deed executed after due compliance with the law cannot be nullified under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court simply because a third party offers a higher price, absent evidence of fraud or illegality. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
8. What is the role of the State Government in the alienation process under Section 19 of the Act?
The State Government may modify or set aside the Commissioner's order via appeal by an interested person or exercise inherent power to revise the order if the alienation is not beneficial or the consideration is inadequate. (Para 8 , 25 , 28 )
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 8th April, 2009 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court directing the Commissioner Endowments to put the subject land in question by fixing the upset price afresh and sell the property by public auction with the liberty to the parties to participate and if the highest bid goes less than Rs. 25 lakhs per acre, respondent nos. 4 & 5(appellants in the writ appeals) shall be responsible to purchase the property @ Rs. 25 lakhs per acre and in the event of non-deposit, the District Authority shall recover the said amount as a land revenue.
2. The brief facts culled out and relevant for the purpose are that the fit person, namely, Sunaram Sabat on behalf of the deity Sri Rama Laxman Sita Swamy Bije at P.O. Luchapada, District Ganjam filed an application under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act, 1951”) seeking permission for sale of Ac. 4.255 decimals of land belong to the deity indicated in the application and referred to by the Commissioner Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar in its order dated 22nd February, 2005.
3. It was pleaded that the subject land in reference to which the permission is being sought was managed by him and is recorded in the name of the deity under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, 1951 and it is lying barren and no income is being derived by the institution and is in possession of the appellant (K. Arjun Das, s/o K. Pitabas Das) for a long time and the income derived from it is very scanty. According to him, the market value of the subject land may be about Rs. 2 lakhs per acre and in case it is sold, the sale proceeds may be kept in fixed deposit account and it will fetch more than the present income and, therefore, requested that the proposed sale is, therefore necessary and beneficial in the interest of the deity.
4. After publication of the notice, opposite party entered their appearance and also filed their written response. The Commissioner Endowments directed Inspector, Endowments to make enquiry and submit report. Pursuant thereto, the Inspector, Endowments submitted his report dated 27th April, 2002 indicating that after making local visit to the subject land, he found the same as lying fallow and no income is generated for the institution and in his view it will be beneficial for the institution if the sanction would be accorded for the proposed sale. He further opined that the value of the land would be in the range of Rs. 5 to 5.50 lakh per acre and this has been assessed by the Officer after visit to the office of Sub-Registrar and after obtaining details of the sale deeds of the area.
5. The appellant in the instant proceedings, also filed affidavit before the Commissioner Endowments that he is in possession of the subject property as a tenant for the last 40 years and paying bhag(share) of the crop to the deity. In support of the claim of tenancy and paying bhag(share) notices of the Inspector Endowments for deposit of bhag, various receipts of payment of bhag were produced before the Commissioner Endowments which has been placed on record in the instant Civil Appeal No. 9576/2010 at pages (3240).
6. Taking note of the fact that application was filed in the year 2001, the Inspector Endowments submitted his report on 27th April, 2002 relying on the sale statistics of the year 2000 and 2001 and four years have been rolled by and there is always a considerable increase in the market value of the land day by day noticing the cumulative effect of the facts into consideration, the Commissioner Endowments with due diligence fixed Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as upset price and accorded permission for sale. The appellant being in possession of the subject land, the Commissioner Endowments considered it appropriate to offer first choice to purchase subject land at the rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and in case he fails to purchase, the subject land be put to public auction
