Unknown vs For The on 17 December, 2013

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Unknown vs For The on 17 December, 2013

1. The petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the notice dated 12.11.1998 issued by the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple, and registered sale deed bearing registration no.786 dated 14.2.2001 executed by the Administrator of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri in favour of opposite party no.4.

2. Case of the petitioner is that the lands situated in Kundheibenta Sahi of Puri Town in Khata No.928, Plot No.1392/15960 with an area of Ac.0.114 corresponding to Sabik Khata No.468 in Plot Nos.657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 2095, 2096 and 2097 stand recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath and is situated in the heart of Puri town. The same is a very -2- valuable piece of property as it is situated opposite the Puri Hospital on the main road. His dwelling house stands opposite to the aforementioned plots. He made a representation on 16.11.1998 to the Temple Administrator requesting the later to sale the property to him for a consideration of rupees one lakh vide Annexure-1. But then the same was not heeded to. In March, 2002, the temporary cabins on the suit land were removed and the opposite party no.4 attempted to install an iron gate at the entrance gate of the suit land. The petitioner immediately rushed to the Office of the Temple Administration and learnt that the land in question has been sold to opposite party no.4 for a consideration of Rs.1,90,000/-. It was asserted that the value of the land would be five times more and he is ready and willing to purchase the land for a consideration of Rs.10 lakhs.

3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Officer-in-charge of the Office of Shri Jagannath Temple, opposite party no.3, filed a counter affidavit. The case of the opposite party no.3 is that as per the decision of the State Level Land Committee in its meeting held on 1.12.2000, the land has been alienated. Necessary approval for sale of the land has been accorded by the State Government vide letter No.82/L dated 3.1.2001 as per the provision of Section 16(2) of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954.

-3-

Further case of the opposite party no.3 is that Sabik Khata No.486/21 covering Sabik Plot No.658 Ac.0.020, Plot No.658/2096 Ac.0.030, Plot No.657, Ac.0.040, Plot No.657/2095 Ac.0.050, Plot No.660 Ac.0.020, Plot No.660/2098 Ac.0.030, Plot No.659 Ac.0.010, Plot No.659/2097 Ac.0.020, Plot No.661 Ac.0.040 of Mouza Kundhaibenta Sahi stood recorded in the name of B.C. Ray Ibrahim Company S/o.Ibrahim Company by caste Musalman of Nijigaon in "Dakhal Satwa Surya" status under original Khata No.21 "Amrut Manohi", which stood recorded in the name of Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu marfat Giridhari Das Guru Sudarsan Das by caste "Baistanb" of Nijigaon in the R.O.R. published in the year 1889-90. The property of Khata No.486/21 of Mz.Kundhaibenta Sahi was declared as evacuee property under Sub- Section 3 of Section 7 of the Evacuee Property Act, 1949 vide Orissa Gazetee Notification dt.17.2.1950. As per provision of Section 5 read with Section 33 of Sri Jagannath Temple Act 1954, O.E.A. Case No.237/90 had been filed in the Court of O.E.A. Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Puri for settlement of the land in favour of Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije Puri marfat Sri Jagannath Temple, Managing Committee, Puri. The said case was rejected by the O.E.A. Collector. Thereafter, O.E.A. Appeal No.17/96 had been filed in the Court of A.D.M., Puri. The Hal not -4- final Khata 928 Hal Plot No.1392, area Ac.0.215 decimal and Plot No.1392/1560, area Ac.0.015 of hal not final village Daitapada Sahi had been prepared in favour of Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu bije Srikhetra marfat Sri Mandir Parichalana Committee, Puri. The suit land is a highly valuable place of land as it is situated almost at a prime location opposite to Dist- Headquarters Hospital, Puri. Further case of the opposite party no.3 is that the opp. Party no.4 had filed a petition before the Temple Administration to purchase the land. Thereafter, the land sale case No.185(T) of 1999 was started. Public istahar inviting objection was published in the locality vide P.R. No.331 dtd. 9.9.1999. But then no objection had been received from any quarter during the stipulated period. Accordingly, the sale deed had been executed in favour of opposite party no.4 vide registered sale deed no.786 dt.14.2.2001. As per provision of sub- section 3 and 10 of Section 15 of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, the Managing Committee, Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri reviewed the matter in their meeting held on 7.10.2002 and it was unanimously decided by the Managing Committee of Sri Jagannath Temple that the said sale deed is illegal and required to be declared as void one, as the suit land is situated in prime location of the Puri Town. The Managing -5- Committee has not given permission for such transfer in any meeting.

4. Opposite party no.4 has entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit contending, inter alia, that earlier one Jagannath Bastia filed OJC No.3001 2001 for the self-same cause of action, wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as opposite party no.4. Further case of the opposite party no.4 is that Plot No.1392, 1392/1560 measuring an area 114 decimals out of the total area of 2150 decimals corresponding to Plot Nos.357, 358,359,360,361,2095,2096 and 2098 in respect of Sabak Plot No.468/21 originally belong to Chaulia Math. The land in question was leased out to one Hari Md. Hazi Abdulah on 21.12.1915. The lease was renewed on 10.7.1925. The lessee constructed a house and was running his business of grocery on the lease hold land. The lessee was declared insolvent in insolvent case No.1014/36. During the pendency of the case a receiver in respect of aforesaid land was appointed. The receiver took a fresh lease on 20.5.1949. As the receiver did not pay the rent, Rent Case No.75 of 1953 (III) was filed before the Munsif, Puri. The land was put to auction. Dhadi Sahoo, the father of this opposite party, purchased the said property through auction sale held by Govt. of India under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act. Since the date of purchase, his father continued -6- to possess the land by his own right and made necessary construction over the said land. The intermediary interest of the Chaulia Math vested with the State of Orissa under the OEA Act. Chaulia Math is a public endowment. The fit person appointed by the Commissioner of Endowment for management of the said math filed claim case before the OEA Collector for various items of property, which were divided into three schedules. Opp. Party No.3's father filed a petition for settlement of land in his favour. In the said case, it was held that the claim of the Math in respect of 'B' Schedule land comprises the property described in Para-4 of the writ application, and the claim of the Math was rejected.

5. Further case of the opposite party no.4 is that the land committee constituted by the Govt. of Orissa in Law Department has fixed rupees one lakh per acre and decided to execute the sale deed in respect of the persons in possession of the land and permitted the Temple Administration to execute the necessary sale deed.

6. We have heard Mr.Samir Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Biswanath Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 and Ms.S.Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.

-7-

7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the property belongs to Shri Jagannath Mahapravhu, who is a perpetual minor. The interest of the deity being the paramount consideration, it was incumbent on the part of the Temple authorities to sale the land in question in auction.

8. In the instant case, the property has been sold to opposite party no.4 on a throwaway price. He further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay higher price. The land in question was sold to opposite party no.4 in the year 2001 for a consideration of Rs.1,92,000/-.

9. Mr.Rath, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3, neither denies nor disputes that the prevailing value of the land in the year 2001 was Rs.1,92,000/-, but then he contends that the Land Committee constituted by the State Government has no jurisdiction to take a decision for the sale of the land in question.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties, we are of the view that the State Level Land Committee in its meeting held on 1.12.2000 took a decision to alienate the land in favour of the person who is in possession and accorded approval as per the provision of Section 16(2) of Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954 would be as -8- evident from counter affidavit filed by the Temple Administration. Thereafter the sale deed was executed for a valid consideration. In the absence of any fraud, it is difficult on our part to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. Learned Advocate General who is also present in Court submits that at the prevalent market price, the property was sold to the petitioner for a valid consideration.

12. In the previous occasion, we have heard the matter at length and directed the petitioner to pay rupees five lakhs over and above the consideration amount in respect of two sale deeds. Be it noted that the sale deed no.785 dated 13.8.2002 executed by the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple in favour of opposite party no.3 therein is also challenged by the present petitioner in WP(C) No.6012 of 2002. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vendees (opposite parties) in both the cases are ready and willing to pay rupees five lakhs more over and above the consideration amount. Accordingly, she has handed over the account payee cheque of Rs.5 lakhs to Mr.Rath, learned counsel for the Temple Administration. We reiterate that in the absence of any fraud, we are not in a position to examine the validity of the sale deed in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when the -9- petitioner is in possession of the case land for more than a decade and that too paid an amount in excess to the consideration amount.

The writ petition is dismissed.

....................... .........................

           Judge                         Chief Justice




pks

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court