Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S. PANDA AND K.R. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Sri Jagannath Das - Petitioner
Versus
Pradyumna Kumar Das and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) NO. 18299 OF 2010, W.P.(C) NO. 1644 OF 2011
Decided On : 01-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.S. Rao, U.K. Mohanty
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Bijan Ray, M/s. Biswajit Moharana, B. Mohanty, D. Chhotray, S. Mohanty, M/s Amiya Kumar Mishra, A.K. Sharma, M.K. Dash, P.K. Dash, S. Mishra, M/s S.J. Pradhan & D. Das, Mr. B. Routray, M/s Suresh Ku. Choudhury, S.R. Kanungo, Mr. R.K. Mohanty, M/s D. Mohanty, S. Mohanty, D. Varadwaj, S. Mohanty, P. Jena, S.N. Biswal, Mr. S.P. Das, A.K. Nath
Headnote:1. ORISSA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - Sec. 29 - The Section does not attach any disqualification to the female members of the family to succeed to the office of Hereditary Trustee.
2. ORISSA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - Sec.3 - Succession to the office of Hereditary Trustee of a religious institution can be made either (a) by hereditary right since the time of the founder; (b) regulated by custom; (c) specifically provided for by the founder so long such scheme of succession is in force.
3. ORISSA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - Sec. 30 (1) - Provision only provides for filling of the permanent vacancy in the office of Hereditary Trustee of a temple - Normally, the person (s) amongst the Hereditary Trustees who are in management of the temple are recognised as Managing Trustees - Such order is being passed by the authority under the Act in the administrative side taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case - Scope of Section does not provide a scope to adjudicate upon the same - The Section has no scope to declare or recognise some one as the Hereditary Managing Trustee - It only recognises the successors next in line to the office of Hereditary Trustee of a religious institution.
Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
Order dated 30.09.2010 passed by learned Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.74 of 2004 filed under Section 30(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (for short, ‘OHRE Act’) is under challenge in these writ petitions.
2. The factual backdrop of this case is not much disputed. The genealogy of the family of Hadibandhu is as follows:-
Hadibandhu Das
Sadhubar Das
Raghubar Das
Bhagaban Das
Harekrushna Das = Suraji
Paramananda Das Ramachandra (adopted son)
Danardana = Nukhuri
Ramachandra (adopted to Paramananda)
Marua Dei = Dinabandhu (H) Choudhury
= Godabari
= Shantilata
Akshya
Prasanna
Sradhamani
Sashimani
Phulamani
Ahalya
Amulya
Narmada = Suryamani
Mina
Kalyani
Snehalata
Pradyumna (Petitioner)
Prafulla
Jagannath
Santosh
Bhargabi
Balaram
Parsuram
Basudev
Chitralekha
One Hadibandhu Das was a great saint and the founder of Chhitiabata. He was given Samadhi within the premises of Chhatiabata, which is known as ‘Samadhi Gosain’. On his death, his son, namely, Sadhubara and after him Raghubara was managing the institution. Raghubara had no male issue. He adopted Bhagaban Das who was blessed with two sons, namely, Harekrushna and Paramananda. Paramananda had no son. So, he adopted Rama Chandra, who is one of the sons of Harekrushna. Like Hadibandhu, Sadhubara and Raghubara were also given Samadhi in the said premises. Harekrushna had a large number of disciples who used to offer Pranami. With that Pranami of the disciples, pucca construction over the Samadhi of Hadibandhu, Sadhubara and Raghubara was made. When some disputes arose with regard to the nature of the religious institution, an application under Section 41(a) of the OHRE Act in OA No.54 of 1966 was filed by said Harekrushna Das and Rama Chandra Das before the Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments for declaration that the institution, Samadhi Gossain Chhatiabata was their private institution. Learned Additional Assistant Commissioner of Endowments by his order dated 27.05.1971 allowed the application and declared the Samadhi Gossain Chhatiabata (for short ‘the case institution’) as private religious institution. The said order was confirmed by learned Commissioner of Endowments in F.A. No.20 of 1971 by his judgment dated 21.12.1976. During pendency of the appeal, Harekrushna Das died on 26.08.1973 leaving behind Suraji (his widow), Nukhuri (widow of his son, namely, Danardana) and Marua Dei (daughter). They were substituted and brought on record at the instance of the appellants therein. The said judgment of the Commissioner of Endowments was challenged before this Court in MA No.64 of 1977. This Court by judgment dated 28.11.1979 allowed the said appeal and reversed the order passed by the authorities under the OHRE Act holding the institution to be a temple (Public Religious Institution) with the family members of founder as hereditary trustees. In the concluding paragraph of the said judgment, this Court held as follows:-
“26. It was admitted by both the parties before the Commissioner of Endowments that the institution first came into existence during the life time of Hadibandhu Das. It was also admitted by them that the members of the petitioner’s family have been managing the affairs of the institution since the time of the founder. The materials on record lend ample support to the view that he and management of the institution have all along been with the petitioner’s family since the time of the founder. There is no evidence to show that the members of public took part in the management of the institution at any time. I would, therefore, hold that the institution of the Chhita Bata is a temple as defined in the Act with respondents 1 to 4 the hereditary trustees thereof.” [See 50(1980) CLT 151] (emphasis suppli
