Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
I. MAHANTY AND B. N. MAHAPATRA, JJ.
Niranjan Mekap and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and others - Opp. parties
W.P. (C) No. 25531 of 2013
Decided On : 30.03.2015
2. DEITY - Deity being a perpetual minor, it is the primary duty of the State and its authorities to protect interest of the deity - In case of any allegation of failure on the part of the State and its instrumentalities to do so, finally, the Court has to protect the interest of the deity, who is a perpetual minor.
Deity is a juristic perpetual minor/disabled person, and the property belonging to a minor and/or a person incapable to cultivate the holding by reason of physical disability or infirmity requires protection. A deity is covered under both the classes. The manager/trustee/pujari and ultimately the State authorities are under obligation to protect the interest of such a minor or physically disabled person. The deity cannot be divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory provisions. The object is laudable and based on public policy. In order to protect deity’s interest even a worshiper/sebayat having no interest in the property may approach the authority or Court. In the instant case, the petitioners being sebayats, whether they have any interest in the deity’s property or not they are competent to approach any authority or Court to protect the deity’s property.
(Paras-31 & 34)
3. WRIT - Petitioner in a writ petition is the master of his own case but conduct of a party sometimes casts suspicion in the mind of others. (Para-36)
4. JUDICIAL JURISPRUDENCE - Only the matters which are urgent and cannot wait till functioning of the regular assigned Bench petitions are moved before the Vacation Bench for some urgent relief. (Para-37)
5. WRIT - Writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and must be exercised in furtherance of justice - Court has to keep in mind that its order should not defeat the interest of justice nor it-should permit an order to secure dishonest advantage or perpetuate an unjust gain nor approve an order which has been passed in contravention of the statutory provision. (Para-38)
6. ODISHA ESTATE ABOLITION ACT, 1951 - Sec.8(3) - Any person who immediately before the date of vesting held land under an intermediary on favourable terms for personal service rendered by him to such intermediary shall, from the date of vesting, be discharged from the conditions of such service and the land may be settled with him in such manner and under such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
Proviso to Sec.8(3) of the Act contemplates that nothing in sub-section (3) shall apply to a trust estate which is vested in the state on or after the date of coming into force of the Odisha Estate Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1970 -In the present case held, in view of proviso to Sec.8(3), the sevayats are not discharged from rendering their seva to Lord Lingaraj even after vesting of the land of Lord Lingaraj in the state and the status of sevayats land’s belonging to Lord Lingaraj which form part of the ’Trust Estate’ remains unaffected even after vesting of trust estate. (Para-45)
7. ODISHA ESTATE ABOLITION ACT, 1951 - Sec.2(h) - No body has any right, title and interest over the property of Lord Lingaraj except the deity - Lord Lingaraj being not an intermediary as defined in the section, the provisions of Secs. 6 & 7 have no application to Lord Lingaraj - Sevayats have only right to possess the land and they render specific services - Sevayats had/have no alienable right in the seva land. (Para 57 to 60)
8. ODISHA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - Sec.19 - Without prior sanction by the Commissioner of Endowment, sale of the land belonging to the deity is expressly barred - Such sanction can be accorded when such sale is necessary or beneficial to the institution - Provisions are mandatory in nature and any alienation made in contravention of the provisions is void. (Para-61 & 76)
9. ODISHA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - Sec.19 - Lands belonging to the deity cannot be subjected to alienation in violation of statutory requirement - Deity’s property can be transferred by sale, exchange or mortgage etc. with prior permission of the Endowment Commissioner only when such transfer is necessary or beneficial to the institution - Before transferring the deity’s property by any means either, of two conditions is to be satisfied, i.e. (i) there must be necessity to sell the deity’s property, or (ii) such sale must be beneficial to the deity. (Paca-78)
10. ENDOWMENT - Any decision/action taken by any authority/ party which is not for the best interest or necessity of deity and/or detrimental to the interest of the deity which is a perpetual minor lacks legal sanction and therefore void ab initio. (Para-82)
11. ADMINISTRATIVE JURISPRUDENCE - State Executive Bodies, quasi-judicial authorities/judicial authorities cannot act contrary to statutory provisions and executive instructions should be subservient to statutory provisions. (Para-86)
JUDGMENT :
B.N. Mahapatra, J.
This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing Annexure-10 series which inter alia contain the letter dated 22.6.2013 issued by the Director of Estates & Ex-Officio Addl. Secretary, Government of Odisha to the Executive Officer, Lingaraj Temple Trust Board, Bhubaneswar and Director, M/s Assotech Milan Resorts (P) Ltd. Lewis Road, Lewis Plaza, Bhubaneswar for submission of Tripartite Deed along with the documents in support of withdrawal of all the cases filed before different courts pursuant to second meeting dated 3.5.2013 under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary, G.A. Department for Settlement of dispute on Ac.2.865 decimals of land in Bhimpur. The further prayer of the petitioners is to issue a direction prohibiting the attempt /liaisoning of the Government high officials with the statutory authorities for closure of the pending cases in compliance of decision made in joint meeting under the Chairmanship of Special Secretary, G.A. Department and for a further direction to dispose of the cases pending before the Revenue Authorities, Civil Authorities and Authorities under the Special Statute within a stipulated period without being influenced by the illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized dictates of the higher officials in the hierarchy of the State Government.
2. Petitioners’ case in a nut-shell is that the land in question belongs to Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu Marfat Trust Board under Khewat No.1B Register No.14830, Khata No. 1874, which has been declared as “trust estate” burdened with incidence of service in favour of Sebayat late Govinda Mekap. The vernacular terminology of “Seva” is “Deba Mausuphankanra Bhandara Jagiba Bartana Sakase Paichanti”. The said property of the deity was declared as a Trust Estate under Section 13-D of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short, “the OEA Act”) by designated Tribunal. Thus, the property remained protected from vesting. In 1965, the Sebayat, late Govinda Mekap, executed one unregistered lease deed in favour of D. Ananda Rao Dora and his brothers. On 30.06.1980, one deed of agreement for sale bearing Registered Deed No.4630 dated 30.06.1980 was executed by Sebayat, late Govinda Mekap in favour of D. Ananda Rao Dora and others. The registered sale deeds nos.5072, 5073, 5074 and 5308 dated 30.03.2009 were executed by the successors of late Gobinda Mekap in favour of Smt. Rutupurna Dhirsamanta. One Joint venture agreement has been entered into by the purchaser Rutupurna Dhirsamanta with M/s. Assotech Millan Resorts Pvt. Ltd. for construction of Hotel/Resort on the land in question.
3. Further, case of the petitioners is that though on 18.03.1974 vesting notification was notified, the property in question did not vest with the State Government in view of proviso to Section 8(3) of the OEA Act. The State Government in Revenue Department prohibited settlement of Jagir land of deity-intermediary, vide notification No.25283-EA-II 17/76 R dated 11.6.1976. On 14.03.1991, the State Government issued instruction regarding modalities of settlement of rent in respect of Bebandobasta status of the landed property of the intermediaries excluding deity’s land in respect of personal service. Notification dated 11.01.1995 was issued in respect of settlement of land relating to Lord Lingaraj Mahaprabhu empowering the Board of Revenue to remedy the irregularities or illegalities committed by Sub-ordinate Officials. On 06.12.2000, the State Government issued another instruction in respect of rent settlement of lands recorded in Bebandabosta Status in the record of rights. The Board of Revenue was endowed with extensive powers, even suo motu power to remedy the wrongs, illegality and irregularity committed by subordinate authorities.
4. According to the petitioners, several cases were filed before the Revenue, Appellate and Revisional Authorities, Civil Courts and in this Court by the petitioners and some of the opposite parties claiming right, title and int
SupremeToday
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
