Orissa High Court
Bauribandhu Mangaraj vs State Of Orissa And Others on 2 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 250
Author: S.K. Mishra
Bench: S.K. Mishra
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
O.J.C. No.1099 of 1997
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
----------
Bauribandhu Mangaraj ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa & others ... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner :M/s. R. K. Dash, D.R. Swain, P. Prusty,
N.K. Sahu and B. Swain
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Sougat Das
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2)
Mr. B.H. Mohanty, Senior Advocate
M/s.D.P. Mohanty, S.C. Mohanty,
J.K. Bastia, R.K. Nayak & B. Das
(For Opposite Party No.3)
M/s. S.P. Dash & A.K. Nath
(For Opposite Party No.4)
----
P R E S E N T:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA
&
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P. CHOUDHURY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing: 26.06.2018 Date of Judgment:02.07.2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. 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
-2-
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
-3-
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
-4-
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 settlement under Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act. As
the Mahanta Ram Prakash Das was looking after the property on behalf of
the Deity, the temple administration did not make any application
independently. However, the settlement vide OEA Act Case No.460/1974
filed by the petitioner has been settled in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu under the Marfadarship of Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Das and
as the order was passed in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, the
petitioner cannot claim better title than a Marfatdar or a tenant.
6. As the Jagannath Temple Managing Committee was constituted
under the provisions of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (in short „SJT
Act‟) and the Government in Revenue Department extended time for filing
claim under Sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act in 1989 vide notification
dted 18.04.1989, the temple administration made an application for
fixation of fair and equitable rent in respect of the case land vide OEA Case
No.317 of 1989 and it was allowed in 1992. It is asserted in the counter
affidavit that even if there are two orders passed by the O.E.A. Collector,
Nimapara, the petitioner-Ram Prakash Das cannot have any grievance
against the order of settlement made in favour of the temple
administration as the orders were passed in favour of the Deity and none
has any personal interest in it.
7. As the ex-intermediary was Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, the
claim of Bada Akhada Math over the case property to have settlement of
-5-
the property in his favour is a falsehood. Neither the Mahanta nor the Math
can claim any personal interest over the suit property which admittedly
belongs to Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu.
8. So far as the allegation of recording of land in favour of the
petitioner-Math in the consolidation operation is concerned, the opposite
party no.3 denied such assertion as no document is filed by the petitioner
to prove the same. Since the case land belongs to Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu and it vests absolutely in the name of Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu represented through the Temple Managing Committee by
virtue of Section 5 of SJT Act, the petitioner-Mahanta or Marfatdar was
neither intermediary nor in Khas possession of the disputed property as
claimed. So, the reliefs prayed in the writ petition should be disallowed.
9. Mr.Sougat Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State-opposite parties submits that the State is supporting the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu-opposite party
no.3.
SUBMISSIONS
10. Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that
since under Section 13-D of Chapter-11-A of the OEA Act, the Trust Estate
has been declared at the instance of Mahanta-Ram Prakash Das in respect
of the suit land and there is no appeal against such decision of the
Tribunal, such finding of the Tribunal has attained finality. Such decision
was made on 28.10.1965. Thereafter, the Bada Akhada Math, being the
ex-intermediary, applied through the Mahanta Ram Prakash Das by filing a
petition under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act for settlement of the land in
-6-
favour of the Math. After observing due procedure, on 28.05.1983, the OEA
Collector, Nimapara has settled the disputed land in favour of ex-
intermediary Math under the Marfatdarship of Ram Prakash Das vide OEA
Case No.460 of 1974. According to him, since the settlement of the case
land has been made under the provisions of the OEA Act and revised ROR
was issued accordingly in the name of the petitioner-Math, the case
property is endowed to Math but not to the temple administration.
11. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the petitioner-Math has acquired property for offering Seva to Lord
Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu and offerings were being distributed between
the devotees. So, the Mahanta, being the Marfatdar of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu, is the actual ex-intermediary and being in Khas possession of
the case land, has got the ownership in possession over the case land. In
consolidation operation also, the ROR was published in favour of the Math,
Marfatdar-Ram Prakash Das.
12. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended
that the Administrator of Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri filed another OEA
Case No.370 of 1989 before the OEA Collector, Nimapara under Sections 6
and 7 of the OEA Act for settlement of the case land in favour of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu represented through the temple administration and
the same was also settled in their favour. Since the case land has already
been settled in favour of the Mahanta of Math, the subsequent settlement
by the O.E.A. Collector, Nimapara is without jurisdiction. On the other
hand, the case land is not the property of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu
but it was endowed to Math for various religious purposes. In this regard,
-7-
he relied on the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mahanta Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V-
Suryanarayan Das and another; AIR 1967 SC 256 where Their
Lordships, at paragraphs-40 and 41, have observed that the lands known
as Amruta Manohi is under the superintendence of the Raja but the lands
other than Amruta Manohi are endowed to the Math of petitioner but not
merely gifted to the plaintiff or, as had been suggested, to Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu. Since the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court has made such observation in similar matter of Mahanta
Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V- Suryanarayan Das and another
(Supra), such ratio of the Constitution Bench is also applicable to this case
and as such, the case land recorded in the name of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu Marfatdar Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Das is to be exclusively
property of Math and not the property of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu
represented by the temple administration. Not only this but also the Math
is in possession of the case land for last thirty years and paying rent
regularly for the same to the State for which the ownership over the case
land is also vested with the Math but not with the temple administration.
13. It has been further submitted by Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel
for the petitioner that the subsequent settlement of the case land vide OEA
Case No.370 of 1989 is a nullity because before that the same land has
already been settled under the OEA Act. If the opposite party no.3 was to
object the settlement made under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act, they
could have participated in the proceeding or they could have preferred an
appeal under Section 9 of the OEA Act challenging the finding of the OEA
-8-
Collector but cannot file another case for settlement as the OEA Collector
has become functous officio in subsequent application to settle the case
land in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri. Therefore, the order
passed under Annexure-7 by the OEA Collector is invalid and illegal.
14. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that not only the petitioner-Math has got stitiban status over the case land
but also being in possession of the same for more than 12 years, he is
settled raiyat as per the provisions of Section 23 of the Orissa Tenancy Act,
1913 (hereinafter called as "OT Act"). Further, he submitted that under
Section 28 of OT Act, by acceptance of rent from the petitioner-Math, the
occupancy tenancy in favour of the petitioner-Math has also been created.
15. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri
Jagannath Temple Managing Committee -V- Siddha Math and
others; 2016 (I) OLR (SC) 209 is not applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case and the decision rendered by the
Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahanta
Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V- Suryanarayan Das (Supra) always
to be followed. The decision rendered by two members Bench of the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple Managing
Committee -V- Siddha Math and others (Supra) decided the principle
decided the principle against the ratio decided in the Constitution Bench
case. Since the ratio of Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee -
V- Siddha Math and others (Supra) is contrary to the view taken by the
Constitution Bench, as per principle of precedent, the decision of two
-9-
members Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is per incuriam. So far as
the applicability of Sections 5 and 6 of the OEA Act is concerned, he
submitted that provisions of SJT Act have no application to the fact and
circumstances of the case because the operation of the provisions of law in
SJT Act is different than the operation of the law under the OEA Act.
Section 5 of the SJT Act refers to constitution of Managing Committee to
look after the affairs of the Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu but the OEA Act is
meant for settlement of land after the property are vested with the State.
So, the ratio decided by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
that the provisions of OEA Act are not applicable on the ground that OEA
Act is general principle of law and the SJT Act as a special law is not
correct. Therefore, he submitted to quash the settlement of land made in
favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu.
16. Mr.B.H.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu-opposite party no.3 submitted that Annexures-1, 2,
3, 4 and 5 would go to show that the case land has been settled in favour
of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu through the Marfatdarship of Ram Prasad
Das, Bada Akhada Math, Puri. According to him, the property was never
settled in favour of the Math but it was settled in favour of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu and the Mahanta used to look after the property of
Deity by staying in Math. So, the Math has no relationship with the
property except using the same on behalf of the Deity for religious
purposes and distributing the Bhog offered to the Deity between the
devotees. Therefore, the settlement of land on the application of the Math
does not go to show that the Math is the owner of the property superseding
- 10 -
the right of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, who is admittedly ex-
intermediary and possessing the suit property.
17. Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party
no.3 further submitted that the temple administration was not made party
to the settlement proceeding under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act. But,
however, on the application of the Collector, Puri and the petitioner-Math,
the Trust Estate was declared in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu.
18. Since the ROR was issued with the status of Lakharaj Bahel
vide Annexure-5, opposite party no.3 filed petition to settle the land.
"Lakharaj Bahel" means right to enjoy the property without payment of
revenue. So after the case land being vested with the State, application
was made by the opposite party no.3 to settle the land in favour of Lord
Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu representing through temple administration.
Under the SJT Act, the Temple Managing Committee was constituted to
look after the movable and immovable property of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu and by virtue of the statutory power, the temple
administration made application under the provisions of the OEA Act and it
was settled. Since Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is always the owner of
the property either through Marfadari right of the petitioner or through the
temple administration, the question of bequeath of the ownership of Deity
does not arise.
19. Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite party
no.3 submitted that in the case of Mahanta Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das
-V- Suryanarayan Das (Supra), the Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble
- 11 -
Supreme Court did not take into account the operation of SJT Act but went
ahead to decide the case in respect of other Math. That decision also has
been cited by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment in
the case of Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee -V-Siddha
Math and others (Supra). Although Their Lordship in that case took note
of the observation of the Constitution Bench but did not opine anything to
distinguish the same. On the other hand, in the judgment of the two
members Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, it is clearly observed that
as the SJT Act is a Special Act and OEA Act is a general law, the principle
that the General provisions of law would pave the way to the Special Act,
the provisions of the OEA Act is not applicable to the properties of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu. Hence, the ratio decided in Shri Jagannath
Temple Managing Committee -V- Siddha Math and others (Supra) is
absolutely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, Annexuer-7 has been passed by the OEA Collector rightly.
20. In reply, Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner turned
down his argument or narrowed down his argument to the effect that the
Math admits the ownership of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu and temple
administration also admit the ownership of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu over the suit property but the Math, being in possession of the
case land, should not be divested of its right to possess and the temple
administration should not interfere with the management of the property
by Math over the case land.
21. POINT FOR DETERMINATION
The main points for considerations are as follows:
- 12 -
I. Whether the petitioner Ram Prasad Das of Bada Akhada Math is
the owner of the case land or Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu continues
to be Landlord of suit property? And
II. Whether Annexure-7 is liable to be quashed?
DISCUSSION
22. POINT No.(I)
It is the admitted fact that the suit property comprising of an area of
Ac.123.336 decimals was part of Debottar Lakharaj Bahel estate of Lord
Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu. It is not in dispute that Mahanta Shri Ram
Prakash Das of Bada Akhada Math was looking after the suit property on
behalf of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu. It is also admitted fact that the
Collector and Mahanta Ram Prakash Das made petition before the Tribunal
to declare as Trust Estate of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri.
23. Annexure-1 shows that two misc. Cases, i.e., Misc. Case
No.543 of 1963 and Misc. Case No.1369 of 1965 were filed by the Collector
and Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Das to declare the case land as Trust
Estate and it is clearly mentioned in the order that the entire income is to
be spent for religious purpose. Annexure-2 shows that OEA Case No.460 of
1974 was filed by Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, Marfat Mahanta Shri Ram
Prakash Das. It is clearly mentioned in that order that Mahanta Ram
Prakash Das preferred claim consequent upon vesting of Trust Estate that
the State Government by Revenue Department notification made on
18.3.1974. Thus, due to such vesting under the provisions of the OEA Act,
the Mahanta preferred the claim. In that case, the properties were settled
with Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfatdar Mahanta Ram
Prakash Das of Markandaswarsahi of Bahda Akhada Math. Annexure-3
- 13 -
shows that the land schedule was issued where name of tenant with
address is written as Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfatdar Mahanta Ram
Prakash Das, Bada Akahada Math. Annexure-4 series shows that in
pursuance of the disposal of such OEA case, the Marfatdar of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu has been paying the rent to the State Government.
In Annexure-4/A and Annexure-4/D, the name of Mahanta is only written
as tenant. However, Annexure-5 shows that settlement ROR was issued on
24.03.1982 in the name of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri
Marfatdar Mahanta Ram Prakash Das, Bada Akhada Math, Puri. That ROR
shows that it was earlier bebandobasta or lakharaj bahel. Annexure-6
shows that Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Department, Bhubaneswar
has received Rs.2000/- from Mahanta Ram Prakash Das as arrear dues on
20.03.1996. But that receipt relates to Bada Akhada Math where Mahanta
Ram Prasad Das used to reside. Then Annexure-7 comes where OEA Case
No.370 of 1989 filed by the opposite party no.3 before the OEA Collector,
Nimapara. From Annexues-1 to 5, it appears that Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu Bije Puri is the landlord and ex-intermediary but represented
through the Marfatdar Shri Ram Prakash Das, who used to reside at Bada
Akhada Math, which is situated at Markandaswarsahi, Puri. The claim of the
petitioner that Trust Estate property of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is
endowed to Math but not to temple is not established by such documents
because the settlement of claim was made in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu, of course with the Marfatdari of Mahanta of Bada Akhada
Math. What is the difference between "Math" and "Temple"? In Orissa
- 14 -
Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, the words "Math" and "Temple"
have been described as under:
"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."
"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."
24. After going through the above definition, it is clear that "Math"
is an institution where spiritual service is performed by spiritual head. In
the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951, the definition of "trustee" is given as under:
"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 or which is liable as if
such person or body were a trustee"
25. From a perusal of the aforesaid definition, it appears that Math
is neither the temple, nor the temple is a Math and both have got separate
existence. Trustee is related to religious institutions. Math and temple both
are religious institutions.
26. The contention of Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the
petitioner has focussed to show that since Bada Akhada Math, under the
trusteeship of Marfatdar Shri Ram Prakash Das, is taking care and
management of the case land, the Math is the owner of the property. The
opposite party no.3 has opposed the move stating that the Mahanta is
simply a Marfatdar that means the trustee but cannot be a Landlord as
- 15 -
Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is the Landlord of the case land. The
contention of Mr.B.H.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the opposite
party no.3 has got force for the simple reason that the documents, as
described above, clearly show that Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije
Puri is the Landlord and the settlement was made in the name of Deity,
which is perpetual minor but represented through the Marfatdar Shri Ram
Prakash Dash. The duty of Mahanta is to manage the property and utilize
the usufructs of the property for religious purposes and distribute them
between the devotees. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the
last part of his argument, admitted that Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is
the owner of the property but the Mahanta, being in charge of the affairs of
the case land, is to succeed to acquire the title thereto, which is very
unnatural phenomenon.
27. However, Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner
stressed on the decision of Constitution Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mahanta Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V-
Suryanarayan Das and another (Supra) and he took us to paragraphs-
40 and 41 of the said judgment, which are placed in the following manner:
"40.We may now consider the properties in schedule Kha said to be
the Amrut Manohi properties of Lord Jagannath and held by the
plaintiff as marfatdar. The plaintiff alleges that these properties were
acquired either by purchase or 'krayadan' or by way of gift subject to
a charge of some offering to Lord Jagannath which depended upon
the individual judgment and discretion of the plaintiff, and that the
public had no concern with the enjoyment or management of the
usufruct thereof. The Gazetteer makes a reference to such properties
and states:--
"Both Saiva and Vaishnava Maths exist in Puri. The lands
of the latter are known as Amruta Manohi (literally
nectar food), because they were given with the intention
that the proceeds thereof should be spent in offering
bhoga before Jagannath and that the Mahaprasad thus
- 16 -
obtained should be distributed among pilgrims, beggars
and ascetics, they are distinct from the Amruta Manohi
lands of the Temple itself which are under the
superintendence of the Raja. This statement makes it
clear that lands endowed to the temple of Lord
Jagannath are distinct from the lands or property
endowed to the Vaishnava Maths for the purpose of
utilizing the proceeds of those properties for offering
bhoga before Lord Jagannath and the subsequent
distribution of that Mahaprasad among pilgrims, beggars
and ascetics, presumably visiting the Math, or
approaching its authorities for a portion of the
Mahaprasad. The mere fact that the proceeds of the
properties were to be so used, would not justify the
conclusion that these properties were not endowed to
the Maths but were endowed to the temple of Lord
Jagannath. Properties endowed to the temple of Lord
Jagannath were, according to this statement, in the
Gazeteer, not under the superintendence of any Math or
Mahant but under the superintendence of the Raja of
Puri himself.
41. As already stated, these Amrit Manohi properties are properties
which are endowed to the Math by the devotees for a particular
service, which is done to Lord Jagannath by the Mahant on behalf of
the Math. The properties are therefore properties endowed to the
Math and not merely gifted to the Math and not merely gifted to the
plaintiff or, as had been suggested to Lord Jagannath."
28. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that Their
Lordships, under the Constitution Bench, have been pleased to decide the
case in a Civil Appeal arising out of a suit filed before the Additional Sub-
ordinate Judge, Puri dismissing the suit instituted by Mahanta Gadadhar
Ramanuj Das against the Endowment Commissioner. In that suit,
Endowment Commissioner was the defendant. In that decision, the concept
of Amruta Manohi property of Lord Jagannath as per Gazeteer was
discussed to find out the nature of property involved in suit as Amruta
Manohi. In the present case, there is nothing found from the writ petition
that the petitioner claims Amruta Manohi property. Apart from this, in the
case of Mahant Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V- Suryanarayan Das
and another (Supra), the property has been acquired in the name of
- 17 -
Mahanta, usufructs of the same are dedicated to the offerings of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu and then distributed between the Sisyas, Chelas
and devotees. In that decision, it is decided that such property cannot be
acquired for the personal enjoyment of the Mahanta but it may belong to
Math or Temple of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu. In that decision, there
was no discussion about application of the SJT Act, which was enacted in
1955 although the said decision was rendered in 1967. On further perusal,
it appears that the original suit was filed in 1946, which culminated with
the decision in the Constitution Bench in the above referred case. Since the
suit was filed before enactment of SJT Act, Their Lordships have no
occasion to consider about the implementation of the SJT Act, 1955.
Moreover, such plea of applicability of SJT Act did not arise for
consideration. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the issues raised in this case exactly similar to the issues
raised before the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
in the case of Mahant Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V- Suryanarayan
Das and another (Supra) is not correct because the property, in this
case, is admittedly in the name of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu,
represented by Marfatdar Shri Ram Prakash Das, who resides at Bada
Akhada Math, Puri and the case properties are not specifically arrayed as
Amruta Manohi property in writ petition and the settlement of claims or any
other documents are prepared in this case after implementation of SJT Act,
1955. Therefore, with due regard to the aforesaid Constitution Bench
decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, although same has binding effect
- 18 -
but the present issue being not raised in that decision, said decision does
not apply to the case at hand.
29. Shri Jagannath Temple Act was enacted in 1955 with the
following avowed objects and reasons:
"Whereas the ancient Temple of Lord Jagannath of Puri has
ever since its inception been an institution of unique national
importance in which millions of Hindu devotees from regions far and
wide have reposed their faith and belief and have regarded it as the
opitome of their tradition and culture;
And whereas long period to and after the British concquest
the superintendence, control and management of the affairs of the
Temple have been the direct concern of successive Rulers,
Governments and their officers and of the publisher exchequer;
And whereas by Regulation IV of 1809 passed by the
Governor-General in Council on 28th April, 1809 and thereafter by
other laws and regulations and in pursuance of arrangement entered
into with the Raja of Khurda, later designated the Raja of Puri, the
said Raja came to be entrusted hereditary with the management of
the affairs of the Temple and its properties as Superintendent
subject to the control and supervision of the ruling power;
And whereas in view of grave and serious irregularities
thereafter Government had to intervene on various occasions in the
past;
And whereas the administration under the Superintendent has
further deteriorated and a situation has arisen rendering it expedient
to reorganize the scheme of management of the affairs of the
Temple and its properties and provide better administration and
governance therefor in supersession of all previous laws, regulations
and arrangements, having regard to the ancient customers and
usage and the unique and traditional nitis and rituals contained in
the Record-of-Rights prepared under Puri Shri Jagannath Temple
(Administration) Act, 1952 (Odisha Act XIV of 1952) in the manner
hereinafter appearing:
It is hereby enacted by the Legislature of the State of Odisha
in the Sixty Year of the Republic of India as follows
Xx xx xx xx"
30. From the aforesaid avowed objects of the above Act, it appears
that SJT Act has a special identity for all human beings. Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu is Universal and the law pertaining to Him and his
property have separate space in all norms. The crores of devotees around
- 19 -
the work assembled to see world famous CAR FESTIVAL of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu. When we are sitting in the temple of justice, we
are not emotional but at the same time, we are with the sentiment of the
public to safeguard and protect the properties of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu, who is perpetual minor. Taking the importance of the Deity
Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu and his Temple at Puri, the SJT Act, 1955
was enacted to take out the management and other affairs of the Deity
from the purview of the O.H.R.E. Act, which were taking care of the affairs
of the Shri Jagannath Temple Bije at Puri. The aforesaid conclusion is
based upon two members Bench decision of the Hon‟ble Surpeme Court in
the case of Shri Jagannath Temploe Managing Committee -V- Siddha
Math and others (Supra). Mr.B.H.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for
opposite party no.3 relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court
but Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the move. In that
decision, Their Lordships, at paragraph-6 of the judgment, have
categorically held as follows:
"6.A Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to examine
the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 in detail, while adjudicating
upon its constitutional validity in the case of Raja Bira Kishore Deb
v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1501. Wanchoo, J, speaking for
the bench observed as under:
"This review of the provisions of the Act shows that broadly
speaking the Act provides for the management of the secular
affairs of the Temple and does not interfere, with the religious
affairs thereof, which have to be performed according to the
record of rights prepared under the Act of 1952 and where
there is no such record of rights in accordance with custom
and usage obtaining in the Temple. It is in this background
that we have to consider the attack on the constitutionality of
the Act."
After adverting to the history of the administration of the Temple, it
was also held:
- 20 -
"Finally the preamble says that the administration under the
superintendent has further deteriorated and a situation has arisen
rendering it expedient to reorganize the scheme of management of
the affairs of the Temple and its properties and provide better
administration and governance therefore in supersession of all
previous laws, regulations and arrangements, having regard to the
ancient customs and usages and the unique and traditional nitis and
rituals contained in the record of rights prepared under the 1952 Act.
So for all these reasons the appellant was removed from the sole
superintendence of the Temple and a committee was appointed by s.
6 of the Act for its management."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
A perusal of the provisions of the Act and the decision of this Court in
the case of Raja Bira Kishore Deb referred to supra clearly shows
that as far as Shri Jagannath Temple of Puri is concerned, the
position of law is that all the endowments and properties belonging
to the Temple vest in the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing
Committee.
31. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that from
the commencement of the SJT Act, 1955, all the endowment properties
belong to Shri Jagannath Temple vested with the Shri Jagannath Temple
Management Committee with the avowed object, as discussed above. In
the said judgment, Their Lordships have discussed about the OEA Act,
1951 vis-a-vis the SJT Act, 1955. After threadbare discussion, Their
Lordships have taken note of the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon‟ble
Suprem Court in the case of Mahant Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V-
Suryanarayan Das and another (Supra). But, at the same time, took
note of another judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lord Jagannath through Jagannath Singri Narasingh Das Mahapatra
Shridhar Panda and others -V- State of Orissa; 1989 (1) Suppl. SCC
553 where the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has taken view that since 1974 the
property of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu vests with the State. Their
Lordships in Shri Jagannath Temple Managing -V- Siddha Math and
others (Supra) have taken view that the decision in the case of Lord
- 21 -
Jagannath through Jagannath Singri Narasingh Das Mahapatra
Shridhar Panda and others -V- State of Orissa (Supra) is per
incuriam as it has not taken care of implementation of SJT Act, 1955.
Further after discussing in detail, Their Lordships, at paragraphs-23, 24
and 25, have observed in the following manner:
"23. In the instant case, there is a clear conflict between the proviso
of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 and Sections 5 and 30 of the
Temple Act, 1955.It is also clear that both the above statutory
provisions of the Acts cannot survive together. While the rule of
harmonious construction must be given effect to as far as possible,
when the provisions of two statutes are irreconcilable, it needs to be
decided as to which provision must be given effect to. In the instant
case, Section 2(oo) proviso in its entirety is not violative of the
provisions of the Temple Act. At the cost of repetition, we reproduce
the relevant part of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 as under:
"Provided that all estates belonging to the Temple of Lord
Jagannath at Puri within the meaning of the Shri Jagannath
Temple Act, 1955 and all estates declared to be trust estates
by a competent authority under this Act prior to the date of
coming into force of the Orissa Estate Abolition
(Amendment) Act, 1970 shall be deemed to be trust
estates."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
It is only the first part of the proviso which is in contravention of the
Temple Act, 1955. If that part of the proviso continues to be given
effect, Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act, 1955, by which the
estates of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri are vested in the Temple
Committee will lose their meaning. By striking down Section 2(oo)
proviso to that extent, both the provisions will be able to operate.
In Commercial Tax Officer v. Binani Cements Ltd; (2014) 8
SCC 319 this Court held as under:
"It is well established that when a general law and a special
law dealing with some aspect dealt with by the general law
are in question, the rule adopted and applied is one of
harmonious construction whereby the general law, to the
extent dealt with by the special law, is impliedly repealed.
This principle finds its origins in the latin maxim of generalia
specialibus non derogant, i.e., general law yields to special
law should they operate in the same field on same subject."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
In J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of
U.P.; (1961) 3 SCR 185, a three judge bench of this Court held as
under:
- 22 -
"9. ...We reach the same result by applying another well
known rule of construction that general provisions yield to
special provisions. The learned Attorney-General seemed to
suggest that while this rule of construction is applicable to
resolve the conflict between the general provision in one Act
and the special provision in another Act, the rule cannot
apply in resolving a conflict between general and special
provisions in the same legislative instrument. This
suggestion does not find support in either principle or
authority. The rule that general provisions should yield to
specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by
lawyers and Judges but springs from the common
understanding of men and women that when the same
person gives two directions one covering a large number of
matters in general and another to only some of them his
intention is that these latter directions should prevail as
regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier
direction should have effect. In Pretty v. Solly (quoted in
Craies on Statute Law at p.m. 206, 6th Edn.) Romilly,
M.R., mentioned the rule thus:
The rule is, that whenever there is a particular enactment and a
general enactment in the same statute and the latter, taken in its
most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular
enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be
taken to affect only the other parts of the statute to which it may
properly apply.
The rule has been applied as between different provisions of the
same statute in numerous cases some of which only need be
mentioned:
De Winton v. Brecon, Churchill v. Crease, United States v.
Chase and Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co.
10. Applying this rule of construction that in cases of conflict
between a specific provision and a general provision the specific
provision prevails over the general provision and the general
provision applies only to such cases which are not covered by the
special provision, we must hold that Clause 5(a) has no application in
a case where the special provisions of Clause 23 are applicable."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
It becomes clear from a perusal of the above mentioned two
judgments of this Court that while provisions of different statutes
must be harmoniously constructed as far as possible, in cases where
it is not possible, the Court needs to examine as to which provision
must be given effect to.
24.In the case in hand, the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo)
of the OEA Act, 1951 cannot be allowed to sustain. Clearly, the
intention of the legislature could not have been to render virtually
the entire Temple Act, enacted on the specific subject, meaningless,
by way of enacting a proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951
as an amendment in 1974, which is the general legislation in the
instant case. Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951, thus, to that extent
requires to be struck down so that both the OEA Act, 1951 as well as
- 23 -
the Temple Act, 1955 can be given due effect in their respective field
of operation. In exercise of the powers conferred under Article 142 of
the Constitution, this Court can pass any order as may be "necessary
for doing complete justice" in a case before it. In the instant case,
great injustice will be caused to the appellant Temple if the rights
conferred upon it by the Temple Act are allowed to be taken away by
operation of the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act. Therefore,
we have to strike down the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act
and also quash the notification dated 18.03.1974 in so far as it
relates to the property of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri.
25.Further, it is a settled principle of law that once a property is
vested by an Act of legislature, to achieve the laudable object, the
same cannot be divested by the enactment of any subsequent
general law and vest such property under such law. Similarly, if in
the instant case, we were to accept the contentions advanced by the
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Math,
then Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act, 1955 will be rendered
useless and nugatory and thereby the laudable object and
intendment of the Temple Act will be defeated and the interest of the
public at large will be affected. Thus, the notification dated
18.03.1974 issued by the State Government under Section 3-A of
the OEA Act, 1951, whereby the estate of Lord Jagannath
Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri vested in the State Government (in terms of
Point (ii) of the notification), is liable to be quashed to that extent.
As a consequence, the order dated 30.09.1981 passed by the OEA
Tahsildar, who falls within the inclusive definition of Collector in
terms of Section 2 (d) of the OEA Act, 1951, settling the land in
favour of the Mahantas of various Maths as Marfatdars of the Shri
Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri is in violation of the provisions of
the Temple Act, 1955 and is thus, liable to be set aside."
32. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that Their
Lordships have clearly observed that since the SJT Act, 1955 is a special
statute, it will override the general enactments, i.e., OEA Act and as such
proviso to Section 2(oo) of the said Act was struck down. Section 2(oo) of
the OEA Act is placed below for better reference:
"2(oo) „trust estate‟ means an estate the whole of the net income
whereof under any trust or other legal obligation has been dedicated
exclusively to charitable or religious purposes of a public nature
without any reservation of pecuniary benefit to any individual:
Provided that all estates belonging to the Temple of Lord Jagannath
at Puri within the meaning of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955
and all estates declared to be trust estates by a competent authority
under this Act prior to the date of coming into force of the Orissa
Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1970 shall be deemed to be
trust estates."
- 24 -
33. While stricking down the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEA
Act, Their Lordships quashed the vesting of the land in favour of Mahanta
of various Maths or Mahants as Marfatdar of Shri Jagannath Temple Bije
Puri for their violation of Section 5 of the SJT Act. Finally, at paragraph-34
of the said judgment, Their Lordships have answered in the following
manner:
"34.For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following order :-
i)C.A. Nos.7729 of 2009, 7730 of 2009,142 of 2010, 221 of 2010,
2981 of 2010, 3414 of 2010,3415 of 2010 and 3446 of 2010 are
allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.07.2009
passed in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000 by the High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack is hereby set aside.
ii)We strike down the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the
OEA Act, 1951, which pertains to the properties of Lord Jagannath
Temple at Puri.
iii)The notification dated 18.03.1974 issued by the State Government
under Section 3A of the OEA Act, 1951 in so far as point No. (ii) is
concerned, is also quashed by this Court, to the extent, it applies to
the lands and estate of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri.
iv)We make it very clear that the striking down of the first part of the
proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 as mentioned above
and quashing of the notification referred to supra will be prospective
and this judgment shall not be applicable to the settled claim of the
claimants hitherto under the provisions of the OEA Act of 1951 in so
far as the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri are concerned.
v) In view of the disposal of appeals above-mentioned in favour of
the Temple Managing Committee, C.A. Nos. @ SLP (C) Nos. 9167-
9168 of 2010 (filed by Shri Raghab Das Math) and C.A. No. 9627 of
2010 (filed by Bauli Math) are hereby dismissed; and
v) No costs are awarded in these proceedings."
34. The observation of the Hon‟ble supreme Court at Clause-IV, as
postulated above, does not arise for consideration since vide Annexure-7,
the case land has been settled in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu
represented through Temple Managing Committee.
- 25 -
35. With due regard to the concluding paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment, it appears that the said judgment is absolutely applicable to the
facts and circumstances and issues raised in the present case. Now,
applying the ratio decided in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple
Managing Committee -V- Siddha Math and others (Supra), it
appears that properties have been vested in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu because he is the ex-intermediary and after implementation of
the SJT Act, the OEA Act has paved the way to SJT Act for vesting of the
property with the Management of Shri Jagannath Temple Committee and it
did not remain with the Marfatdari of any Mahanta or Math basing on the
principle of Latin Maxim of "generalia specialibus non-derogant". Not only
this but also Annexure-7 shows that Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu
represented by Temple Committee filed the case under Sections 6 and 7 of
the OEA Act before the OEA Collector and rent was fixed in favour of Lord
Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Temple represented by the Managing
Committee. From the above order under Annexure-7, it appears that the
Managing Committee of the Temple, the record of right earlier prepared in
the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfatdar Shri Ram Prakash Das,
Bada Akhada Math was in bebandobasta status. Once it is Bebandobasta
status, as submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3, it
is the land without having fixation of any rent. So, for fixation of rent, the
Temple Managing Committee filed application by virtue of the power under
Section 5 of the SJT Act and it was settled in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu Bije Puri represented through Managing Committee. So, the
settlement of land when remained under Bebandobasta status, it cannot be
- 26 -
said that there is settlement of claim in favour of Mahanta Shri Ram
Prakash Das or Math. When it is again settled in favour of Lord Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu represented through Temple Administration as per
the provisions of SJT Act, which is to govern the field, the Court is of the
view that Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is the sole owner in possession
of the case land and the management of case land has now been changed
to Temple Managing Committee by virtue of operation of law. Moreover,
Section-2 of SJT Act clearly shows that OHRE Act will not apply the
properties of Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije at Puri. On the other
hand, due to enactment of SJT Act, neither OHRE Act nor OEA Act hold
field to decide the management of movable and immovable properties of
Lord Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu. It is also clear that when Lord Shree
Jagannath Mahaprabhu is the owner and the petitioner-Math or Marfatdar
claims as Marfatdar of deity, they are only caretaker. Can a caretaker take
the plea of ownership of deity? It is not at all. It is reiterated that SJT Act
gives the authority of vesting of land with Lord Shree Jagannath
Mahaprabhu represented through the Managing Committee of the Temple.
The Point No.(I) is answered accordingly.
POINT NO.(II)
36. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
since there is judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed in the case of
Mahant Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V- Suryanarayan Das and
another (Supra), the same would be followed and the judgment of
Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri
- 27 -
Jagannath Temple Managing Committee -V- Siddha Math and
others (Supra) will have no precedent to be followed. The question of
precedent is well discussed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of
N.Meera Rani -V- Government of Tamil Nadu and another; AIR
1989 SC 2027 and Their Lordships, at paragraph-13 of the said judgment,
have observed in the following manner:
"13. We may now refer to the decisions on the basis of which this
point is to be decided. The starting point is the decision of a
Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw -v- District Magistrate,
Burdwan & Anr; (1964) 4 SCR 921 : AIR 1964 SC 334. All
subsequent decisions which are cited have to be read in the light of
this Constitution Bench decision since they are decisions by Benches
comprised of lesser number of Judges. It is obvious that none of
these subsequent decisions could have intended taking a view
contrary to that of the Constitution Bench in Rameshwar Shaw's
case (supra)."
37. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it is undisputed that
the decision of the Constitution Bench is to prevail over the decision of
Bench having lesser number of judges but the question arises if ratio
decidendi as decided by the Constitution Bench is on the same issue raised
before the Bench of lesser number of Judges. In the instant case, it is
reiterated that the issue in Mahant Shri Shrinivas Ramanuj Das -V-
Suryanarayan Das and another (Supra), is not on the issue raised and
decided in the case of Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee -
V- Siddha Math and others (Supra)..
38. Mr.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted
that Annexure-7 is liable to be set aside because of the fact that once the
claim is settled under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act, further claim cannot
be settled against same land under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act. In the
- 28 -
aforesaid paragraphs, it has been well discussed that the Temple Managing
Committee, representing Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, has
filed the claim as the case land was of bebandobasta status. So, the claim
of the Temple Managing Committee filed subsequently cannot be said as
repetition of earlier claim but a fresh claim and there is no reason to differ
from the contention of the learned counsel for the Managing Committee to
file such case. However, the contention of Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for
the petitioner that subsequent settlement made under Sections 6 and 7 of
the OEA Act is without jurisdiction is indefensible. Hence, Annexure-7 is not
liable to be quashed.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that under Sections
23 and 28 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, the petitioner-Mahanta has become a
settled Raiyat. Since Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije at Puri is the
Landlord continuing as Landlord, the question of applicability of OT Act
does not arise. He further urged that the operation under Section 9 of the
OEA Act could have been filed by the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing
Committee to set aside the order passed by the OEA Collector under
Sections 6 and 7 vide Anenxure-2. Since the earlier claim made under
Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act vide Annexure-2 was not final, and further
claim is filed by the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee upon
operation of law, question of applicability of appeal against Annexure-2
does not arise. Here, only conclusion arrived is that the argument of the
petitioner is otiose one because if the appeal under Section 9 of the OEA
- 29 -
Act is applicable, then the petitioner could have filed such appeal instead of
filing the present writ petition.
40. In terms of the above discussion, the Court is of the view that
Annexure-7 is not liable to be quashed but it is a valid document in favour
of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, who has been continuing as owner in
possession of the case land throughout. The Point No.(II) is answered
accordingly.
CONCLUSION
41. In the writ petition, it has been prayed to quash Annexure-7,
the order dated 02.06.1992 passed by the O.E.A. Collector, Nimapara in
O.E.A. Case No.370 of 1989.
42. In terms of the discussions made hereinabove, it has been
already observed that Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu is the Landlord of
the case land and continued to be as such. It has been already held that
under Annexure-7, the rent has been fixed payable by Lord Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu represented by Temple Managing Committee. As the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee -V-
Siddha Math and others (Supra), have also directed in a similar facts,
circumstances and issues that the Temple Managing Committee is the sole
authority to manage the properties of Lord Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu,
thus, the Court is of the view that the case land, by facts and law, did not
remain under the care of the petitioner-Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Das and
his successor or Bada Akhada Math, Puri and they are all to continue to
- 30 -
remain in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri represented by
the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee.
The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
.................................
Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J.
S.K. Mishra, J.I agree.
............................. S.K. Mishra,J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 02th July,2018/Nayak