Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. L. Narasimham, C. J. And P. V. B. Rao, J.
BHIMSEN GOCHHIKAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA - Respondent
O. J. C. 7 Of 1956
Decided On : April 30, 1958
RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS - JAGANNATH TEMPLE ACT - VALIDITY - DEFINITION OF ENDOWMENT - CONTROL OVER PRIVATE RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS - POWERS OF ADMINISTRATOR - CONSTITUTIONALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a hereditary sebak of the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, challenged the validity of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, claiming it to be ultra vires the State Legislature and not capable of being given effect to.
Finding of the Court:
The Court upheld the validity of the Act, holding that the definitions of "endowment" and "specific endowment" in the Act were similar to those in the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the definition of "endowment" in the Act was too broad and included private religious endowments, thereby interfering with the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution? 2. Whether the powers conferred on the Administrator by the Act were arbitrary and violated the petitioner's right to property under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31(2) of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the definition of "endowment" in the Act was wide enough to include private religious endowments but that the provisions of the Act did not attempt to appropriate the income of such endowments for the purposes of the Temple. 2. The Court held that the powers conferred on the Administrator by the Act were not arbitrary as they were subject to appeal to the Committee and ultimately to the civil Court.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
R. L. NARASIMHAM, C. J.
( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one of the sebaks of the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri, known as Pratihari, for a declaration that the Shri Jagannath Temple Act (1954 (Act 11 of 1954), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is ultra vires the State Legislature and not capable of being given effect to.
( 2 ) THIS petition was heard along with O. J. C. , No. 321 of 1955 : (AIR 1959 Orissa 5) (A) in which the Raja of Puri challenged the validity of the Act. Most of the constitutional questions have been fully discussed in my judgment in that petition which has been delivered today. Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the petitioners, laid special emphasis on the fact that the Temple of Sri Jagannath at Puri (hereinafter referred to as the Temple) belongs to a special sect of Hindus known as the followers of "jagannath Dharma" who form a separate denomination of their own, within the meaning of Article 26 of the Constitution. This question has been fully discussed in my judgment in O. J. C. , 321 of 1955 : (AIR 1959 Orissa 5) (A) and it is unnecessary to repeat it here.
( 3 ) A few special points that were taken up in this petition may now be noticed. The petitioner and other Pratiharis who form an association known as Pratihari Nijog are undoubtedly hereditary sebaks of the Temple whose rights have been recorded in the record of rights prepared by the Special Officer, under the Orissa Sri jagannath Temple (Administration) Act 1952 (Orissa Act XIV of 1952 ). That record is final subject to the decision of the District Judge on an application made by a sebak, as provided in Section 6 of that Act, as amended by Orissa Act I of 1954. By Section 8 of the Act the provisions of Orissa Act XIV of 1952 were made apart of the Act. Mr. M. Mohanty on behalf of the petitioner attacked the definition of the expression "endowment" occurring in Section 2 of the 1952 Act. Especially the Explanation to that definition. For the purpose of appreciating bis argument, it will be useful to quote the relevant provisions of that Act :
"2. In this Act unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context : (a) 'endowment' means all property belonging to or given or endowed for the support of the temple or given or endowed for the performance of any service, including the service of offerings to the deity or charity connected therewith, and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the sebak, pujari or other employee of the temple: explanation : Any gift, inam, or muafi or sebait or jagir granted to a sebak, pujari or other employee of the temple or to any other person for the performance of any service, including the service of offerings to the deity or charity in or connected with the temple, shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the said sebak, pujari, or other employee, but shall be deemed to be an endowment. (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) 'specific endowment' means any property or money endowed for the performance of any specific service or charity in the temple. "
Sub-section (5) of Section 15 of the Act casts on the Committee the duty of ensuring that the funds of the specific and religious endowments are spent according to the wishes, so far as may be known of the donors.
( 4 ) MR. Mohanty contended that the petitioner and some other sebaks attached to the Temple have a large number of jajmans (pilgrims) who come from different parts of India, utilise the services of these Pandas for performing their worship in the Temple, and then after giving them some gifts for the services rendered by them, further set apart some money or property in the hands of the petitioner and other Pandas for offering bhog to Lord Jagannath and distributing the Mahaprasad either amongst the members of the Panda's family or to a limited class of people. Mr. Mohanty urged that any propert
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
