SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Ori) 234

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
SANJU PANDA, S.K. PANIGRAHI, JJ.
Reetanjali Sahu – Petitioner 
Versus
The Ministewr Law Odisha and Ors. – Respondents 
W.P.(C) No. 25751 of 2020
Decided On : 08-10-2020

The court emphasized that decisions affecting public interest must be accompanied by clear reasoning to ensure transparency and fair play, particularly in matters of auction concerning religious properties.

Headnote:(A) Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 - Section 19 - Sale of deity’s property - Challenge to order permitting auction at a reduced upset price without reason - Fairness and transparency in auction process upheld - Petitioner argued that the auction procedure undermined the interests of the deity by being non-transparent - Court found the impugned order to be non-reasoned and detrimental to the deity’s interests. (Paras 3, 6, 12, 13)

(B) Judicial Decisions - Requirement for reasoning in administrative decisions - Emphasis on recording reasons to promote justice and accountability - Court reiterated the necessity of transparent decision-making. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order allowing the sale of land belonging to a temple at a lower price without adequate justification, asserting that the proper auction process was not followed, which is essential for safeguarding the temple's financial interest.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned order was procedurally flawed and quashed it, restoring the earlier decision of the Commissioner of Endowments to conduct an auction with proper valuation and transparency.

Issues: The court addressed whether the auction process followed by the authorized party was fair and if adequate reasons were required for its decisions regarding the sale price.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of reasoning in the decision-making process invalidated the order as it affected the interests of the deity and violated principles of transparency required under the Act.

Result: Writ petition allowed, and the earlier order of the Commissioner of Endowments restored.

Table of Content
1. sale of deity's property under ohre act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner's challenge to auction process. (Para 7 , 8)
3. importance of reasoned decisions in law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. impugned order lacks reasoning. (Para 12)
5. court restores prior order; writ petition disposed. (Para 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

This matter is taken up through video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate.

3. The petitioner, in this writ petition challenges the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by opposite party no.1 permitting sale of the Deity’s property at a throw away lower price and to proceed with the auction in violation of fair and transparent manner without any reason assigned thereof while dissenting with the judgment dated 11.12.2018 passed by the learned Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 08 of 2004 under section 19 of the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, hereinafter to be referred as the “OHRE Act”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deity, Radha Krishna Lalita Temple, Bije Hinjili in the district of Ganjam through its Interim Trustee, had filed an application under section 19 of the OHRE Act, before the learned Commissioner of Endowments for according permission of sale of the lands as mentioned in the schedule of the petition. The said application was registered as O.A. No. 08 of 2004. It has been stated by the deity-institution that the landed properties of the deity-institution are under the possession of the tenants, who are paying Raj-bhog under the O.L.R. Act. Due to promulgation of the O.L.R. Act, the income of the temple has been reduced and it is difficult to manage the temple with the limited income. The institution is also facing difficulties in protecting the land from the greedy eye of Arun the land grabbers. The institution is not getting any income from the case schedule land. Therefore, the sale of the lands in question is essential and beneficial for the institution, if the sale proceeds will be deposited in any Nationalized Bank. Accordingly, it was proposed to sell the land at the prevailing market rate and to keep the sale proceeds in fixed deposit scheme so that it will earn better revenue in shape of interest. Public notice as required under Section 19 of the OHRE Act was published in the locality inviting objections from the Hindu Public against the proposed sale, but no-body came forward to file any objection.

5. Learned Commissioner of Endowments vide judgment dated 11.12.2018 allowed the appeal and directed that the land as per the schedule is to be put to public auction with the upset price @ Rs. 70,00,000/- (rupees seventy lakhs) per acre. He has also directed that the auction shall be conducted in the presence of the Addl. Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Berhampur as well as the Local Inspector of Endowments with a condition that at least 30 days prior to the date of public auction, it shall be advertised by beat of drums in the locality as well as by publication in any daily Oriya newspapers like Dharitri, Samaj, Sambad, Samay etc or English daily like Times of India etc. having wide circulation in the locality. If necessary, the deity-institution during the public auction, in order to maintain law and order situation shall take the help of the local police. The sale proceeds shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank under long term fixed deposit scheme in the name of the deity Sri Radha Krushna Lalita Temple; it shall be pledged in favour of the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. The sale shall be effected within six months after expiry of the period of appeal/revision, if no appeal/ revision is preferred in the meanwhile, and in case of appeal or revision, then subject to orders of such Appellate/Revisional Authority. Amended provision of section 19 (c) (i) of the O.H.R.E. Act shall be strictly followed. Accordingly the copy of the judgment was sen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top