Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
S.K. MISHRA, D.P. CHOUDHURY, JJ.
Bauribandhu Mangaraj - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa & others - Opposite Parties
O.J.C. No. 1099 of 1997
Decided On : 02-07-2018
For the Petitioner: M/s. R.K. Dash, D.R. Swain, P. Prusty, N.K. Sahu and B. Swain.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Sougat Das, Additional Standing Counsel, Mr. B.H. Mohanty, Senior Advocate, M/s. D.P. Mohanty, S.C. Mohanty, J.K. Bastia, R.K. Nayak & B. Das, M/s. S.P. Dash & A.K. Nath.
Headnote:1. ORISSA ESTATES ABOLITION ACT, 1951 - Secs. 11-A, 13-D, 6 & 7, 8-A (3) - SHREE JAGANNATH TEMPLE ACT, 1955 - Sec. 5 - HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951- Order dated 2.6.1992 passed by the O.E.A. Collector, Nimapara in O.E.A. Case No.302 of 1989 was challenged - Case land is recorded as Debottar Lakharaj Bahel Estate in the name of Shree Jagannath Bije Marfatdar Mahanta Sri Rama Prakash Das, Bada Akhada Math, Puri - Shri Jagannath being the Ex-intermediary after vesting of the Estate the petitioner applied for settlement of the suit land in his favour - The case land was settled in favour of Shri Jagannath, the Marfatdar, being the Mahanta of Bada Akhada Math - In the said proceeding the O.E.A. Collector again passed order to record the suit land in favour of Shree Jagannath Mohaprabhu, Marfatdar, Managing Trustee as per Sec. 5 of Jagannath Temple Act - Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned order as the O.E.A. Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the lease afresh - Discussed the points of law - Cited case laws - Case land by facts and law did not remained under the care of the petitioner the Mahanta of Bada Akhada Math and they were all continuing to remain in the name of Shree Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije Puri represented by Jagannath Temple Managing Committee - Writ Petition disposed of.
2. "MATH" - Means an institution for the promotion of the Hindu religion presided over by a person whose duty is to engage himself in spiritual service or who exercises or claims to exercise spiritual headship over a body of disciples and succession to whose office devolves in accordance with the directions of the founder of the institution or is regulated by custom and includes places of religious worship other than a temple and also places of instruction or places for the maintenance of Vidyarthis or places for rendering charitable or religious services in general which are or may be appurtenant to such institution."
3. "TEMPLE" - Means a place by whatever designation known, used as a place of public religious worship and dedicated to, or for the benefit of, or used as of right by, the Hindu community, or any class or section thereof, as a place of public religious worship and also includes any cultural institution or mandap or library connected with such a place of public religious worship."
4. "TRUSTEE" - Means a person by whatever designation known, in whom the administration of a religious institution and endowment are vested, and includes any person or body who is liable as if such person or body were a trustee.
Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
D.P. Choudhury, J.
Challenge has been made to the order dated 2.6.1992 passed by the learned O.E.A. Collector, Nimapara in OEA Case No.307 of 1989.
FACTS
2. The adumbrated facts of the petitioner is that the case land is recorded as Debottar Lakhraj Bahel estate in the name of Lord Shri Jagannath Bije, Puri, through the Marfatdar of Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Das, Bada Akhada Math, Puri. The Collector, Puri and Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Dash filed Misc. Case No.543 of 1963 and Misc. Case No.1369 of 1965 under Section 13 (D) of the unamended provision of Chapter-11-A of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as “OEA Act”) before the Tribunal for declaration that the suit property is trust estate. On the basis of the application, the Tribunal allowed the suit property as trust estate. It is further alleged inter alia that Lord Jagannath being ex-intermediary after vesting of the estate applied through petitioner for settlement of the case land in their favour under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (in short “the Act”). After due procedure being followed, the case land was settled in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath through Marfatdar Mahanta Ram Prakash Dash of Bada Akhada Math. The entire income of the case land is spent for religious purposes. After the land was settled, the petitioner used to pay the rent and same has been accepted by the State. The settlement took place on 21.1.1984 and rent schedule was issued in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri Marfatdar Shri Ram Prakash Dash, Bada Akhada Math. Accordingly rent was paid.
3. Be it stated that, pursuant to the issuance of rent schedule, the suit land was recorded by Assistant Settlement Officer. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party being the Managing Committee Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, Puri filed O.E.A. Case No.370 of 1989 under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. In that proceeding the O.E.A. Collector again passed order to record the suit land in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu marfat Managing Committee on the ground that under Section 5 of the Jagannath Temple Act (in short “the J.T. Act”) the Managing Committee is the rightful intermediary to the property. The petitioner challenged such order stating that once the property has been already settled in favour of the Marfatdar petitioner, the O.E.A. Collector has no jurisdiction to resettle the same with the Management of the Temple-opposite party. On the other hand, the O.E.A. Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the lease afresh. Hence, the writ petition is filed to quash impugned order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri.
4. Traversing the averments made in the writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, opposite party no.3 and in the said counter affidavit, it is averred that Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu of Puri is the owner in possession of the case land. Since it was not physically possible to possess all the properties personally and manage the same effectively, as per the practice the Marfatdars were looking after the property for and on behalf of the Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, who is perpetual minor. Accordingly, the case land was kept under the Marfatdarship of the petitioner.
5. Be it stated that, Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu was an intermediary and when the intermediary vested in the year 1962-1963, a set of Marfatdars filed application under Chapter II-A of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 for declaration that the estate of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu was a Trust Estate. The Mahanta of Bada Akhada Math, the petitioner filed such an application and the applications were allowed in favour of the Deity. In 1972-1973, when Chapter II-A of the O.E.A. Act was repealed, all intermediary’s interest vested with the State Government with effect from 1974. So, the Mahanta of Bada Akhada Math filed an application under Section 8-A(3) of the O.E.A. Act for fixation of fair and equitable rent for its settleme
