Orissa High Court
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfatdar ... vs O.E.A. Collector-Cum-Tahasildar Puri ... on 11 July, 2016
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) NO. 12861 OF 2010
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India.
-----------
Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfatdar
Mahant Sri Srinibas Ramanuj Das ...... Petitioner
-Versus-
O.E.A. Collector-cum-Tahasildar, Puri
and others ...... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : N.C.Panigrahi, Sr. Advocate
M/s S.R. Panigrahi, N.K.Tripathy
& D.Dhal
For Opp. Parties : Addl. Government Advocate
(For O.Ps. 1 & 2)
M/s. S.Satapathy, J.N.Rath,
S.K.Jethi & S.K.Mishra
(For O.P. No.3)
---------------------------------
Date of Order :11.07.2016
----------------------------------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE S. PANDA
AND
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.R. Mohapatra, J.Order dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure-4) passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Puri in O.E.A. Appeal No.37 of 2005 is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The Additional District Magistrate, Puri (for short 'the ADM') in the impugned order under Annexure-4 dismissed the appeal 2 and thereby confirmed the order dated 31.05.1999 passed by the Tahasildar-cum-O.E.A. Collector, Puri (for short, 'OEA Collector) in OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 (Annexure-1). In OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990, the OEA Collector relying upon Government Order No.17920/R dated03.04.1992 issued by the Revenue and Excise Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Letter No.16935/LRS dated 26.12.1992 issued by the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack allowed the OEA case and directed for settlement of the case land more-fully described in the said order in favour of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfatdar, Managing Committee, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri (opposite party No. 3).
3. Relevant facts for adjudication in this case are briefly stated hereunder.
The dispute relates to the case land more-fully described in the order passed in OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 (Annexure-1). Pursuant to a blanket order of vesting dated 18.03.1974, the petitioner, namely, Mahant Sri Srinibas Ramanuj Das claiming to be Marfatdar of Dakhin Parswa Math, Bali Sahi, Puri stated to have filed an application under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (for short, 'OEA Act'), which was registered as OEA Claim Case No.1312 of 1974 on the file of Additional Tahasildar-cum-OEA Collector, Puri. Similarly, opposite party No.3, namely, Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfatdar Managing Committee, Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri filed an application under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act, which was registered as OEA Case No.45 of 1990. It 3 is the case of the petitioner that the property (case land) was recorded in the name of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Marfat, Dakhin Parswa Math Endowment, Puri. After vesting of the estate vide Notification dated 18.03.1974, he filed the OEA Claim Case No.1312 of 1974. The opposite party No.3, without filing objection to the claim case filed by the petitioner, filed OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 much beyond the stipulated period. The OEA Collector only took up the OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 for consideration. He without issuing proper proclamation and without notice to the petitioner passed order dated 31.05.1999 (Annexure-1) allowing the claim of opposite party No.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred OEA Appeal No.37 of 2005 (Annexure-2). In the appeal, the petitioner had taken a specific stand that the OEA Collector without taking into consideration the Claim Case No.1312 of 1974 filed by the petitioner and without issuing notice to the recorded tenants, namely, the present petitioner allowed the claim of opposite party No.3. While considering Claim Case of opposite party No.3, the OEA Collector did not take into consideration the ratio decided in the case of Srinivas Ramanuja Das Vs. Surjanarayan Das , reported in AIR 1967 SC
256. The property was never endowed to the Temple (opposite party No.3), but to the Math (the petitioner). The opposite party No.3 was not in Khas possession on the date of vesting and had failed to file claim application within the stipulated period of six month from the date of vesting. Hence, the order impugned therein was bad in law. The ADM, Puri without considering the contentions raised by the 4 petitioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 08.12.2009 (Annexure-4), which is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. In the writ petition, the petitioner categorically submitted that for all fairness of the matter, both the Claim Cases, viz., OEA Case No.1312 of 1974 filed by the present petitioner and OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 filed by OP No.3 ought to have been considered simultaneously and the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing while adjudicating OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990. Thus, he prayed to set aside the impugned order under Annexures- 1 and 4 and to remand the case to the OEA Collector for fresh hearing of both the cases simultaneously.
4. The opposite party No.3-Temple Administration filed its counter affidavit denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is contended inter alia that the case land stood recorded in the name of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri (for short, 'the deity') in settlement ROR in the year 1899. By operation of Section 5 of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act 1955'), the Managing Committee of the Temple is the Marfatdar of the property belonging to the deity. The petitioner-Math was only entrusted to manage the properties. The erstwhile Marfatdar had no right to prefer any claim in view of provisions under Section 5 of the Act, 1955. As such, the petitioner is no more the Marfatdar nor is in Khas possession of the property. The claim of the petitioner is misconceived. No document has been filed before the OEA Collector in support of pendency of OEA Claim Case No.1312 of 1974. Two Civil 5 Suits, such as CS No.82 of 2005 and CS No.313 of 2006 were filed by strangers in collusion with the petitioner claiming occupancy right against the Math. The opposite party No.3 also claimed that the OEA Appeal was filed after lapse of six years from the date of order passed by the OEA Collector. The case land situates in the prime locality of Puri town near Town Police Station on Grand Road, Puri, which has a commercial potentiality. The same is under lock and key of the Temple Administration. Thus, leasing out of the case land in favour of tenants by the petitioner for agricultural and horticultural purposes is highly improbable and unbelievable. The notification of vesting dated 18.03.1974 was challenged before this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the meantime, the State Government extended the time to file claim application relating to the properties of the deity. Accordingly, OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 was filed and the OEA Collector observing all formalities required under law has settled the land in favour of the deity. Accordingly, both the OEA Collector as well as the ADM, Puri have rightly passed order under Annexures-1 and 4 respectively which need no interference by this Court.
5. Mr.N.C.Panigrahi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Hal ROR in respect of the case land has been published in the name of the petitioner. By virtue of notification dated 18.03.1974, the case land vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Accordingly, the petitioner filed OEA Claim Case No.1312 of 1974, which is still pending. Thus, the OEA Collector ought to have considered both the claim cases simultaneously in 6 order to avoid conflict of decision and multiplicity of litigations. Further, the claim application filed by the Temple Administration as OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 was barred by limitation as no claim was filed within the six months from the date of notification dated 18.03.1974. The petitioner being the intermediary in respect of the case land had rightly filed an application under Section 8-A of the OEA Act. The petitioner ought to have given opportunity of hearing in OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 because the case land stood recorded in the name of the petitioner in the capacity of Marfatdar (intermediary). The procedure, as laid down under Rules 3, 6, 7-B of the Orissa Estate Abolition Rules, was not at all followed while adjudicating the claim of the Temple Administration. Mr.Panigrahi further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the ratio decided in the case of Srinivas Ramanuja Das (supra), wherein it has been categorically held that the properties recorded in the name of the Math are not properties of the deity since it is not the endowment of the deity. Thus, the observation of the ADM, Puri under Annexure-4 to the effect that by operation of the Act, 1955, the property stood recorded in the name of the deity is contrary to law and is liable to be struck down. He further submitted that the deity was never in possession of the case land and the petitioner-Math was all along possessing the same by leasing out to different tenants for agricultural and horticultural purposes. He further brought to the notice of this Court to CS No.82 of 2005 and CS No.313 of 2006 filed by the tenants of the petitioner-Math claiming occupancy right 7 against them which abundantly make it clear that the Temple Administration was never in possession of the suit property. Thus, the claim of the Temple Administration could not have been entertained, as it was under 'Nijdakhal' of the petitioner-Math. Had the claim case of the petitioner been considered, he would have got an opportunity to bring the same to the notice of the Court. The ADM, Puri while entertaining the OEA Appeal being completely swayed away by the Government Order No.17920/R dated 03.04.1992 issued by the Revenue and Excise Department, Odisha, Bhubaneswar and Letter No.16935/LRS dated 26.12.1992 and Section-5 of the Act, 1955 came to an erroneous conclusion which warrants interference of this Court. He further submitted that the matter should be remanded to the OEA Collector for de nove consideration.
6. Mr.S. Satapathy, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.3 vehemently objected to the submissions made by Mr.Panigrahi. He reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the Temple Administration (OP No.3) submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee Vs. Siddha Math & Ors., reported in 2016 (I) OLR (SC) 209, the petitioner has no claim over the suit property as notification dated 18.03.1974 has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri. Further in paragraph 25 of the said decision (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that settling the land in favour of the Mahantas of various Maths as 8 Marfatdars of the Shri Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri is in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1955 and is thus, liable to be set aside. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while quashing the notification dated 18.03.1974 issued under Section 3A of the OEA Act held that all the endowments of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri vests in the Temple Managing Committee. He further submitted that the case land has a boundary wall and under lock and key of the Temple Administration. The petitioner was not in possession on the date of vesting and thus, the claim of the petitioner that the Temple Administration was not in possession of the case land is not correct. Thus, he contended that the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
7. Mr.Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 supported the orders under Annexures-1 and 4. He further submitted that in view of the ratio decided in Siddha Math's case (supra) quashing the notification dated 18.03.1974 so far it relates to Sri Jagannath Temple, petitioner's claim is not sustainable.
8. Though Mr.Panigrahi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the claim case, i.e., OEA Claim Case No.1312 of 1974 stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the OEA Collector, no document or materials to that effect has been produced either before the Appellate Court or before this Court to substantiate his claim. In absence of any material, this Court is not in a position to accept the claim with regard to filing and/or pendency of 9 OEA Claim Case No.1312 of 1974 by the petitioner. There is no quarrel over the fact that immediately after issuance of notification dated 18.03.1974 under Section 3-A of the OEA Act, the same was challenged before this Court and it went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 34 (iii) of Siddha Math's case (supra) has categorically held as under:
"34 xxx xxx xxx
(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.
xxx xxx xxx"
Mr.Panigrahi, learned Senior Advocate, however, submitted that the land under consideration in Siddha Math's case (supra) was the 'Amruta Manohi' property of Lord Jagannath. Hence, that decision is not applicable to the case at hand. On the other hand, the ratio decided in Srinivas Ramanuja Das's case (supra) is squarely applicable to the case at hand. This contention is not acceptable because the conclusion at paragraph-34 (iii) of Siddha Math's case (supra) is not confined to Amruta Manohi property only. It relates to the endowment and estate of lord Jagannath in toto. Thus, the conclusion arrived at paragraph-34 (iii) of Siddha Math's case (supra) is squarely applicable to this case. Further, in view of the aforesaid conclusion quashing the notification dated 18.03.1974, the ratio decided in Srinivas Ramanuja Das's case (supra) has no application 10 herein. Moreover, at paragraph-25 of Siddha Math's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"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 Page 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."
In view of the observation made therein, it is abundantly clear that by operation of Sections 5 and 30 of the Act, 1955, the settlement of land in favour of Mahantas of various Maths as Marfatdars of Shree Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri would be in violation of provisions of the Act, 1955. Further, Mr.Panigrahi contended that the claim application of the deity was beyond six month as provided in notification dated 18.03.1974 under Section 3A of the OEA Act and thus, claim of the deity ought not have been considered and should 11 have been rejected on this ground alone. In course of argument, Mr.Satapathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.3 brought notice of this Court to the fact that notification dated 18.03.1974 was challenged before this Court and it went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. During pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government from time to time extended the period of filing the claim under notification dated 18.03.1974. The OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 filed within that extended period; hence, no exception should be taken for the same. Mr.Mishra, Learned Additional Government also supported the same. In that view of the matter, unhesitatingly we hold that the OEA Claim Case No.45 of 1990 was in time.
9. In view of the discussions made above, we don't find any reason to interfere with the impugned order under Annexure-4, which is otherwise legal and justified. Accordingly, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is dismissed.
.................................
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
S. Panda, J. I agree.
........................
S. Panda, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
Dated the 11th July, 2016/ss