Orissa High Court
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu-Bije-Puri vs Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu-Bije on 4 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 and W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022
In W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu-Bije-Puri, represented by the
Administrator, Sri Mandira, Puri, PO/PS/Dist- Puri
....Petitioner
-versus-
1. Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu-Bije, Indol Math, represented
through Mahanta Sri Sudarsan Das, disciple of late Mahanta
Satyabadi Das of Village- Indol, PO- Salanga, PS- Nimapara,
Dist- Puri
2. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa, Cuttack, At/PO/Dist-
Cuttack
3. Addl. District Magistrate, Puri, At/PO/Dist- Puri
4. Tahasildar-cum-OEA, Collector, Nimapara, At/PO/PS-
Nimapara, Dist- Puri
....Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.1: Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.2 to 4: Mr. L. Samantray, AGA
W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 1 of 22
In W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Indola Math, represented
through Mahanta Sudarsan Das, Guru Mahanta late Satyabadi
Das At- Indola, PO- Salanga, PS- Nimapada, Dist- Puri
....Petitioner
-versus-
1. State of Odisha, represented through its Secretary, Revenue
and Disaster Management Department, Secretariat Building,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda
2. Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije-Puri, represented through
Administrator, Sri Mandira Puri, At/PO/PS-Puri, Dist-Puri
3. Collector, Puri, At/PO/PS-Puri, Dist-Puri
4. Addl. District Magistrate, Puri, At/PO/PS- Puri, Dist-Puri
5. Tahasildar, Nimapara, At/PO/PS- Nimapada, Dist- Puri
6. Addl. Tahasildar, Nimapara, At/PO/PS- Nimapara, Dist- Puri
....Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
For Opposite Party No.2: Mr. Subrat Satpathy, Advocate
For Opposite Parties No.1, 3 to 6: Mr. L. Samantaray, AGA
W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 2 of 22
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
04.11.2024 Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.
Both the applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order as they involve identical legal issue concerning same land.
2. We have heard Mr. Subrat Satpathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (opposite party No.1 in W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022), Mr. Niranjan Lenka, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.1 (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022) and Mr. L. Samantray, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA), appearing on behalf of opposite parties-State of Odisha.
W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005
3. An order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha dated 28.03.2005 in OEA Revision Case No.61/2003 preferred by opposite party No.1 is under challenge in W.P.(C) W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 3 of 22 No.12096 of 2005. It is manifest from the impugned order that it is based on the premise that the estate (appertaining to the land recorded in the name of Jagannath Mahaprabhu, Marfat Satyabadi Das and II Part Khewat No.10659, Tartib No.2/2 under Sabik Khata No.3 General No.27236 having Amrutamanohi Debattar bahal status) stood vested in the Government as result of a notification dated 18.03.1974 issued under Section 3-A of the Odisha Estate Abolition Act, 1951 ("OEA Act", in short).
4. The facts leading to passing of the impugned order by the Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa dated 28.03.2005 are that on an application filed by opposite party No.1, i.e., Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu-Bije, Indol Math, Puri under the OEA Act giving rise to OEA Case No.441/84 in the court of OEA Collector, Nimapara, the disputed land bearing Hal Holding No.165 comprising Chaka No.98 and 4 Hal plots (Hal Plots No.194, 8, 9 and 11) to an extent of Ac.14.19 decimal was allowed to be recorded in the name of opposite party No.1 on Stitiban status. Later, another OEA Claim Case No.330/89 was filed under Section 6 and 7 of the OEA Act in favour of Lord Jagannath, Puri. Opposite party No.1 appeared in the said case upon notice and challenged the maintainability of said W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 4 of 22 OEA Claim Case No.330/89 on the ground that the disputed land was already settled in its favour by the then Additional Tahasildar, Nimapara. The parties in the said OEA Claim Case No.330/89 were heard. The OEA Collector in the subsequent OEA Case No.330/89 noted, based on Hal RoR, that the disputed land was recorded in favour of 'Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri', Marfat-Mahanta Sudarsan Das, Guru Mahanta Satyabadi Das in Bebandobasta status. According to Sabik RoR, the same was recorded in favour of 'Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu' Marfat-Satyabadi Das and II part Khewat No.10659, Tartib No.2/2 under Sabik Khata No.3 General No.27236 having Amrutamanohi Debattar Bahal status. The OEA Collector further recorded that the status of Amrutamanohi is only meant for Lord Jagannath Bije, Puri and therefore, claim of opposite party No.1 that the suit land belonged to Jagannath Mahaprabhu- Bije, Indol Math was incorrect. The OEA Collector discussed that the Marfatdars of the property relating to Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu were looking after the seva puja of Lord Jagannath by enjoying His property. They were just like agents of the Lord. However, after commencement of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (in short the "Temple Act"), those Marfatdars W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 5 of 22 were dislodged and the Temple Management Committee under the Supervision of the Temple Administrator has been looking after all the affairs of Lord Jagannath in accordance with Section 5 of the Temple Act. After having noticed the statutory provisions, the OEA Collector passed an order settling the disputed land with Shri Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri Marfat Administrator, Srimandir Managing Committee in Stitiban status. The order passed by the OEA Collector in OEA Claim Case No.330/89 was challenged by opposite party No.1 before the Additional District Magistrate, Puri giving rise to OEA Appeal No.18 of 1996. The said appeal came to be subsequently dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate, Puri by an order dated 17.03.2003.
4.1 The appellate authority recorded following reasons for not interfering with the order passed by the OEA Collector in OEA Claim Case No.330/89.
"In the foregoing discussion it is clear that there is no dispute regarding ownership of the land i.e. Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri but the dispute is marfatdarship, hence the only issue is to be decided in this case whether Mahanta, Sudarsan Das will be the marfatdar or the Administrator, Sri Jaganath Temple.W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 6 of 22
There is no doubt that the Administrator Sri Jagannath Temple is a proprietary status under Sri Jaganath Temple Act and he is the custodian of all movable and immovable properties of Lord Jagannath and is governed by Sri Jagannath Temple Act. The provision of OHRE Act will not be applicable to Sri Jagannath Temple Act. It is fact that Sri Jaganath Temple Act is still in force and the Administrator is appointed under the statute to protect and safeguard the interest of the Lord.
In view of the above fact, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned lower court, hence the appeal is dismissed."
5. This is the background in which opposite party No.1 filed a revision case under Section 38-B of the OEA Act giving rise to OEA Revision Case No.61 of 2003 challenging the order of the appellate authority. The Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha has allowed the revision application by the impugned order. The Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha framed following two questions for disposal of the case, namely:
"(A): Whether the property is Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath Bije, Puri or the property of Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Indol?
(B) Whether disposal of later OEA Case No.330/89 is genuine?"
6. Dealing with the first Question (A), the revisional authority reached the following conclusion: W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 7 of 22
(A) (i) No evidence could be adduced by the petitioner proving his stand that the property is Amrutamanohi property of Lord Jagannath Bije, Puri;
(A) (ii) There was no doubt that the property is of Shri Jagannath. However, based on the documents, it appeared that the property belonged to opposite party No.1 which was being governed by the Endowment Commissioner as a property of public religious endowment. Accordingly, the suit property belonged to Hindol Math and not to the present petitioner;
(A) (iii) The consolidated (settlement) Khata No.165 was prepared in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri Marfat Mahanta Sudarsan Das, Guru Mahanta Satyabadi Das under
Bebandobasta status. The record preparation is admitted by both the parties except the word "Bije-Puri". Opposite party No.1 has filed a Civil Suit No.143/98 for deletion of the said entry. When record has been challenged before the civil court, the same entry is considered to have no impact in the present juncture of the case";
(A) (iv) The estate vested on 18.03.1974 when 1972 settlement RoR prevailed and accordingly, the settlement was required to be W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 8 of 22 done as per the Sabik records. The Hal record has no impact on the settlement of the vested land.
(Underscored for emphasis) 6.1 Dealing with the second question (B), the revisional authority reached the following conclusion:
(B) OEA Collector had settled the land on 20.07.1985 in OEA Case No.441/84 in favour of opposite party No.1. After the settlement, opposite party No.1 became Stitiban tenant and the land became Stitiban land. Since the suit property became Stitiban property with effect from 20.07.1985, the OEA Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate OEA Case No.330/89 against the Stitiban property.
6.2 After having recorded as above, the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha declared the orders dated 29.02.1996 in OEA Case No.330/89 and that of the Additional District Magistrate, Puri dated 17.03.2003 in OEA Appeal No.18/96 without jurisdiction and illegal. The Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha also observed that the OEA Collector, while passing the order in OEA Case No.330/89, ought not to have declared the earlier order passed by W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 9 of 22 the OEA Collector in OEA Case No.441/84 as void as such comments could be made only by the appellate or the revisional court under the OEA Act.
7. In our considered opinion, the core legal issue involved in the present writ petition stands settled by the Supreme Court in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math and others (AIR 2016 SC 564), paragraph 25 of which reads as under:
"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 33 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 W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 10 of 22 Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri is in violation of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 and is thus, liable to be set aside."
8. The said notification dated 18.03.1974 has been set aside by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra) as has been quoted hereinabove. It is apparent that the Supreme Court's decision has been rendered after taking into account the provisions under Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act and the apparent conflict between the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act.
9. Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act read as under:
"5. Incorporation- Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time being in force or custom, usage or contract, Sanad, deed or engagement, the administration and the governance of the Temple and its endowments shall vest in a Committee called the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee constituted as such by the State Government, and it shall have the rights and privileges in respect thereof as provided in Section 33. It shall be a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal, and may, be the said name sue and be sued.
xxx xxx xxx
30. Power of the State Government-(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the general superintendence of the Temple and its endowments shall vest in the State Government which may pass any orders that may be W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 11 of 22 deemed necessary for the proper maintenance or administration of the Temple or its endowments or in the interest of the general public worshipping in the Temple.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act the State Government may call for and examine the records of [Chief Administrator] [Substituted vide Orissa Gazette Extraordinary No. 1836 dated 27.12.2004 (O.A. 12 of 2004).] or of the Committee in respect of any proceedings with a view to satisfy themselves as to the regularity of such proceeding or the correctness, legality or propriety of any decision or order made therein, and if in any case it appears to the State Government that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, they may pass orders accordingly:
Provided that the State Government may stay the execution of any such decision or order, pending the exercise of their power under Sub-section (2) in respect thereof."
9.1 Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act reads as under:
"2(oo). "Trust estate" means an estate, the whole of the net income 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 estate belonging to the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri within the meaning of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, II of 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 Odisha Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act 33 of 1970 shall be deemed to be trust estates."
(Underscored for emphasis) W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 12 of 22
10. The Supreme Court in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra), noticing the conflict between the aforesaid first part of the proviso to Section 2 (oo) of the OEA Act and Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act, has viewed that if the said part of the proviso continued to be given effect to, Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act, by which the estate of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri are vested in the Temple Committee, would lose their meaning. The Supreme Court further opined that by striking down the said part of the proviso under Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, both the provisions can be allowed to operate and accordingly, struck down the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act to the aforesaid extent and the notification dated 18.03.1974. Paragraph 24 of the said judgment is also relevant and is being reproduced herein below:
"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 the Temple Act, 1955 can be given due effect in their respective field W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 13 of 22 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."
(Underscored for emphasis)
11. The Supreme Court in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra) had broadly framed two questions as under:
"1) Whether the suit lands can vest in the respondent Math in the light of the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955?
2) Whether even otherwise, the Math had the right to prefer claim rights in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate the proceedings under the OEA Act, 1951 by virtue of being an intermediary?"
12. The Supreme Court, however, in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra) recorded in paragraph 34(iv) that the striking down of the first part of the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act and quashing of the notification dated 18.03.1974 will be prospective and the judgment shall not be W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 14 of 22 applicable to unsettle the settled claim of the claimants hitherto under the provisions of the OEA Act, in so far as the lands of Lord Jagannath Temple, at Puri are concerned.
13. It is worthwhile noticing that the legality of the same notification under Section 3-A of the OEA Act dated 18.03.1974 was upheld by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision in case of Lord Jagannath v. State of Orissa and others (AIR 1989 SC 464). The Supreme Court, however, in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra) has held the said decision to be per incuriam on the ground of non-consideration of the provisions of Section 5 and 30 of the Temple Act. The Supreme Court in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee has held in paragraph-16 as under:
"16. We agree with the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Temple Committee. Most respectfully, we opine that the decision of this Court in the case of Lord Jagannath (AIR 1989 SC 464) referred to supra, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the notification dated 18.03.1974 in so far as it pertains to the estate of Lord Jagannath is per-incuriam for non-consideration of the provisions of Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act, 1955 and the law laid down by this Court as regards between the two State W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 15 of 22 enactments, which one will be the Special Act over other. xxxxxxx"
After having answered Question No.1 as noted above, the Supreme Court examined the second question as to whether the Math in that case had any right to file any application for settlement of the suit lands in terms of Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act. After noticing the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Basanti Kumari Sahu v. State of Orissa, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 722, the Supreme Court laid down in Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra) in paragraph 31 as under:
"31.Since the Tahsildar performs only an administrative function under the OEA Act, 1951 and not a quasi judicial function, thus, he was not competent to pass the order of settlement of claim either under Section 6 or 7 or 8 of the OEA Act, 1951. For the reasons stated in answer to Point No.1 above, vesting of the suit lands in favour of the Math is bad in law. Further, as we have already held supra that once the land already vested in the Temple Committee under Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 which is a special enactment to deal with the properties endowed to the appellant Temple Committee, the same could not have been divested by applying the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951 by way of an amendment to the Act by insertion of Sections 2(oo) and 3A in the OEA Act, 1951, as the operation of the said Act and the Temple Act, 1955 are in different fields and the W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 16 of 22 objects and intendment of the abovementioned two Acts are entirely different. A constitution bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Gas Company Ltd. v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044 held that in case of a conflict or overlap between different entries, the rule of harmonious construction must be applied to give effect to all the entries. This Court held as under:
"8. ......Before construing the said entries it would be useful to notice some of the well settled rules of interpretation laid down by the Federal Court and this Court in the matter of constructing the entries. The power to legislate is given to the appropriate Legislatures by Article 246 of the Constitution. The entries in the three Lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation; they demarcate the area over which the appropriate Legislatures can operate. It is also well settled that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the entries. But some of the entries in the different List or in the same List may overlap and sometimes may also appear to be in direct conflict with each other. It is then the duty of this Court to reconcile the entries and bring about harmony between them. When the question arose about reconciling entry 45 of List I, duties of excise, and entry 18 of List II, taxes on the sale of goods, SC587 of Government of India Act, 1935, Gwyer, C.J., in In re The Central Provinces and Berar Act No.XIV of 1938, observed:
"A grant of the power in general terms, standing by itself, would no doubt be construed in the wider sense; but it may be qualified by other express provisions in the same enactment, by the implication of the context, and even by considerations arising out of what appears to be the general scheme of the Act."W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 17 of 22
The learned Chief Justice proceeded to state:
"........... an endeavour must be made to solve it, as the Judicial Committee have said by having recourse to the context and scheme of the Act, and a reconciliation attempted between two apparently conflicting jurisdictions by reading the two entries together and by interpreting, and, where necessary, modifying the language of the one by that of the other.
If indeed such a reconciliation should prove impossible, then, and only then, will the non- obstante clause operate and the federal power prevail."
The Federal Court in that case held that the entry "taxes on the sale of goods" was not covered by the entry "duties of excise" and in coming to that conclusion, the learned Chief Justice observed:
"Here are two separate enactments, each in one aspect conferring the power to impose a tax upon goods; and it would accord with sound principles of construction to take the more general power, that which extends to the whole of India, as subject to an exception created by the particular power, that which extends to the provinced only. It is not perhaps strictly accurate to speak of the provincial power as being excepted out of the federal power, for the two are independent of one another and exist side by side. But the underlying principle in the two cases must be the same, that a general power ought not to be so construed as to make a ity of a particular power conferred by the same Act and operating in the same field, when by reading the former in a more restricted sense, effect can be given to the latter in its ordinary and natural meaning."
The rule of construction adopted by that decision for the purpose of harmonizing the two W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 18 of 22 apparently conflicting entries in the two Lists would equally apply to an apparent conflict between two entries in the same List. Patanjali Sastri, J., as he then was, held in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabai, (AIR 1951 SC 69) that the words "administration of justice" and "constitution and organization of all courts" in item one of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, must be understood in a restricted sense excluding from their scope "jurisdiction and powers of courts" specifically dealt with in item 2 of List II. In the words of the learned Judge, if such a construction was not given "the wider construction of entry 1 would deprive entry 2 of all its content and reduce it to useless lumber." This rule of construction has not been dissented from in any of the subsequent decisions of this Court. It may, therefore, be taken as a well settled rule of construction that every attempt should be made to harmonize the apparently conflicting entries not only of different Lists but also of the same List and to reject that construction which will rob one of the entries of its entire content and make it nugatory."
(Emphasis laid by this Court) In the light of the reasons assigned by us in answer to Point No.1 and held in favour of the Temple, there was no need for the Temple Committee to file claim proceedings under Section 8-A of the OEA Act, 1951, in respect of its own lands which were already vested in it under Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955. The suit lands vest in the Temple Committee itself. Thus, in view of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, the settlement of the suit lands in favour of the respondent Math cannot be sustained, as it is bad in law.
Answer to Point No. 3"
(underscored for emphasis) W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 19 of 22
14. It is manifest from the orders passed by the OEA Collector, Nimapara dated 20.7.1985 in OEA No.441 of 1984 that he had not taken into account the consequences of the provisions under the Temple Act. The said order is perfunctory on the face of it. In the subsequent proceeding under the OEA Act i.e. OEA Claim Case No.330/89, the OEA Collector, elaborately dealt with the effect of the Temple Act and passed the order. The appellate authority i.e. Additional District Magistrate, Puri had approved the order passed by the OEA Collector taking into account the provisions of the Temple Act. However, the Revisional Authority i.e. the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha in the impugned order without dealing with the provisions under the Temple Act, set aside the orders of the OEA Collector and the Additional District Magistrate.
15. In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 28.03.2005 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha in OEA Revision Case No.61 of 2003 cannot be sustained, which is accordingly set aside.
W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 20 of 22
16. This writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022
17. Opposite party No.1 in W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 is the petitioner in the present writ petition which has been filed challenging the legality of an order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Nimapara in OEA Case No.1363 of 2016 mainly on the ground that the property belongs to the petitioner and the Additional Tahasildar, Nimapada has illegally settled the land in favour of opposite party No.2. As has been noted hereinabove, the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha was under
challenge in the present writ petition. However, during the pendency of the writ petition and in the light of the Supreme Court's decision rendered in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra), an order has been passed on 27.01.2018 in OEA Case No.1363 of 2016 to the following effect:
"Mouza Indola, Khata No.165, Plot No.194, 08, 09 & 11 total area Ac 14.19 with the existing kisam is settled in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfat Temple Managing Committee, in Sthitiban status subject to payment of Salami of Rs.31,927.50/ W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 21 of 22 fixed @ Rs.2250/- per acre of land and back Rent and Cess as admissible w.e.f. 1953-54 as per G.O. No.EA- II-16/2000-57677/R. Dt.06.12.2000 and G.O. No.27800/R. Dt.17.07.2004 of Revenue Department, Government of Orissa."
18. The said order dated 27.11.2018 has been challenged in the present writ petition. The impugned order passed by the Tahasildar, Nimapara is in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee (supra).
19. In such background, the present writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
Savitri Ratho, J. I agree.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 20-Nov-2024 15:40:36
S.K. Guin, PA
S. Behera, Sr. Stenographer
W.P.(C) No.12096 of 2005 & W.P.(C) No.11278 of 2022 Page 22 of 22