Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R.N. Misra, K.B. Panda, JJ.
SRI CHIRANJILAL PATWARI - APPELLANT
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
O.J.C. No. 894 of 1970
Decided On : 14-08-1973
ORISSA HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT - AMRITMONOHI PROPERTY - JURISDICTION OF COMMISSIONER - ADVERSE POSSESSION - RETROSPECTIVE SANCTION - VALIDITY OF LEASE - WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDERS U/S 25 AND 19 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments directing requisition to be sent to the Collector of Puri for effecting delivery of possession of lands included in a lease hold granted in favor of the Petitioner by the ex. Mahant of Khaki Akhada Math, Puri. The Petitioner claimed to have taken a permanent lease in respect of the land in question on 25-1-1950, obtained permission from the Municipality for construction, raised a pucca residential building on the property, and improved the land generally. The Commissioner, however, held that the lease was granted without obtaining sanction from the Commissioner as contemplated u/s 19 of the Act and directed delivery of possession of the lands in favor of the interim Trustee.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the property in question was Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath of Puri and, therefore, the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act had no application. The Court further held that the impugned order of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction and quashed the same. The Court also quashed the order passed by the Commissioner in O.P. No. 526 of 1959-60 purporting to be u/s 19 of the Act and directed the Commissioner to re-dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
Issues: 1. Whether the property in question was Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath of Puri and, therefore, the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act had no application? 2. Whether the impugned order of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction? 3. Whether the order passed by the Commissioner in O.P. No. 526 of 1959-60 purporting to be u/s 19 of the Act was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the property in question was Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath of Puri on the basis of the following: a. The property was recorded as Amrutmonohi in the Record-of-rights of the Provincial Settlement (1899). b. The Tribunal Judge under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act had declared the estate to be a trust estate. c. The definition of 'Endowment' in the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 included property given or endowed for the support of the Temple or for the performance of any service connected therewith. d. Section 33 of the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 provided for the Committee to be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties belonging to the Temple. 2. The Court held that the impugned order of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction as the property in question was Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath of Puri and, therefore, the provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act had no application. 3. The Court held that the order passed by the Commissioner in O.P. No. 526 of 1959-60 purporting to be u/s 19 of the Act was not valid as Section 19 of the Act did not provide for retrospective sanction and the alienation to be valid required a pre-existing sanction.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the impugned order u/s 25 of the Act and required the Commissioner to re-dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Court also quashed the order passed by the Commissioner in O.P. No. 526 of 1959-60 purporting to be u/s 19 of the Act.
JUDGMENT :
R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Opp. party No. 1) dated 9-4-1970, made u/s 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Orissa Act of 2 of 1952)(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") directing a requisition to be sent to the Collector of Puri for effecting delivery of possession of lands included in a lease hold granted in favour of the Petitioner by the ex. Mahant of Khaki Akhada Math, Puri. On receipt of the requisition of the Commissioner, the Collector of Puri (Opp. party No. 2) called upon the Petitioner to deliver possession of the property to opposite party No. 3, the interim trustee of the said Math. The Petitioner, therefore, has asked us to quash Annexure-4 (the order u/s 25) and Annexure-6 (the order of the Collector dated 5-8-1970) by issuing a writ of certiorari.
2. On 25-1-1950, the Petitioner claims to have taken a permanent lease in respect of Ac. 1.610 of land in Kundheibenta Sahi in the town of Puri on a premium of Rs. 5,500/- and rentral of Rs. 100/- per annum. The land is claimed to have been recorded in the Settlement Record-of-Rights as Amrutmonohi and the predecessor-in-interest of opposite party No. 3, a mahant was the marfatdar thereof. The Petitioner claims that after the lease was taken, he obtained permission from the Municipality for construction and has raised a pucca residential building on the property and has improved the land generally. But when suo motu, action was taken u/s 25 of the Act, the Petitioner came with an application u/s 19 thereof for obtaining sanction. No action was taken in the suo motu, proceedings nor was the application u/s 19 of the Act filed by the Petitioner disposed of. While both these applications were pending before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 3 applied again u/s 25 of the Act and opp. party No. 36 of 1969-70 was registered before the Commissioner On 9-4-1970, under Annexure-A the Commissioner arbitrarily held:
It has been proved on behalf of the interim Trustee-Petitioner, and not denied by the opposite party, that the land in question had been leased by the previous hereditary trustee on 25-1-1950 without obtaining sanction from the Commissioner as contemplated u/s 19 of the Act. No doubt, the opposite party has been paying rent for the land and seems to have improved the sites to some extent. But that would not give him any authority to retain the land, particularly when the alienation is unlawful. So, the present proceeding u/s 25 is competent.
Issue requisition to the Collector, Puri to effect delivery of possession of the lands in favour of the interim Trustee.
The Petitioner who is the lessee has asked us to quash the said order and the consequential orders both of the Commissioner as will as the Collector.
3. Mr. Mohapatra for the Petitioner contends that:
(1) the property in question being Amrutmonohi, THE Act has no application and the Commissioner had, therefore, no jurisdiction to make the order u/s 25 of the Act. It is contended, on the other hand, that Sri Jagannath Temple Act (Act 11 of 1955) is to apply.
(2) the Petitioner has acquired right, title and interest in the property by continuous adverse possession for more than 12 years and as such the impugned, order could not be made.
(3) the subsequent order made by the Commissioner on the application made by the Petitioner u/s 19 of the Act is also assailed as being an. order without any basis. The order is also labelled as arbitrary and clearly vitiated.
4. Contention No. 1 : There is no dispute that the property in question has been recorded as Amrutamanohi : The Record-of-rights of the Provincial Settlement (1899) has been produced in support of the said allegation (vide Annexure-l). Reliance is also placed on the order of the Tribunal under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act dated 21-12-1967 (Annexure-8 A). Miscellaneous Case No. 2874 of 1967 was registered on a reference made by the Collector under Chapter
AI
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
