Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opp. party no. 1, inter alia, stating that the writ petition involves various disputed question of facts and, as such, the same cannot be decided in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been further stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner - Mahanta being a Marfatdar of Lord Jagannath Temple property, he cannot claim title over the same. The opp. party no. 1 has further stated that this is an attempt by the petitioner - Mahanta to grab the temple property illegally. The status of the petitioner no. 1 - Math has also been disputed to be a religious Math. The specific plea of the opp. party no. 1 is that Misc. Case No. 50 of 1963 decided by the Tribunal under section 13-D of the O.E.A. Act was in respect of Ac. 0.760 decimals of land in Khata no. 21, village Dalomandap Sahi, which was recorded as "A.M.Lakhraj Bahel" property of Lord Jagannath of Shri Mandir and the whole income of the trust estate is meant for religious purpose of the deity. The trust estate of Lord Jagannath defined under the provisions of section 13 of the O.E.A. Act is the same, as defined in section 2 (oo) of the said Act, and, therefore, the property recorded in the name of Jagannath Mohaprabhu is a trust estate in which the recorded Marfatdar had no personal interest or any reservation of any pecuniary benefit. In spite of this, the late Mahanta knowing it to be the property of Lord Jagannath sold Ac. 0. 210 decimals of valuable lands of the deity before filing his claim case under the O.E.A. Act and, therefore, the recording of the name of late Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das in the O.E.A. rent schedule as Marfatdar, has no legal value, more so, when there was a status quo order passed in O.J.C. No. 233 of 1977. This recording also violates the principles of sections 5 and 31 (1) of Shri Jagannath Temple Act. Similarly, the Hal R.O.R. under Annexure-4 was prepared when there was stay order of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3177 of 1982. After the Civil Appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 2.11.1988, the Government of Orissa in its Revenue Department issued a notification dated 18.4.1989 extending time to file claims in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of sub- section (3) of section 8(A) of the O.E.A. Act, 1951. Therefore, the temple authority filed O.E.A. Claim Case No. 68 of 1990 before the O.E.A. Collector to settle the land in their favour within the stipulated time and the O.E.A. Collector after performing all legal formalities settled the land in favour of Lord Jagannath. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the opp. party no. 1 that the settlement under Annexure-3 is an irregular settlement in the name of the previous Mahanta as the Marfatdar instead of the Managing Committee created by the Special Act, i.e., Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, as the Marfatdar. The distinction between a Math and Temple is not relevant for the purpose of this case. As per section 2 (1) of the Jagannath Temple Act, the provisions of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act shall cease to apply to Shri Jagannath Temple and section 2 (2) of the said Act provides that all law, regulation and other enactments passed for the purpose of providing for the management of affairs of the temple and its properties shall cease to have any effect.

7. This Court is called upon to address itself and decide as to whether the property in dispute, though declared as a trust estate and, thereafter, though vested in the State under the O.E.A. Act and settled in the name of Shri Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri, marfat Mahanta Sidha Brundaban Ramanuja Das in O.E.A. Claim Case No. 58 of 1975, can again be resettled under sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A. Act on an application filed by the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple, numbered as O.E.A. Claim Case No. 68 of 1990 by the impugned order under Annexure-5 and to decide as to whether the property in dispute though recorded in the name of Lord Shri Jagannath Bije, Puri under the Marfatdar, Mahanta Sidha Brundaban Ramanuja Das in the status of Amrutmohoni can be said to be the property of the temple of Lord Shri Jagannath to be administered by the Administrator, Shri Jagannath Temple under the provisions of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 as amended from time to time.

However, applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Krushna Chandra Badapanda (supra), as quoted above, it is clear that section 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act would have no application to the case as the property in question has been dedicated to Lord Shri Jagannath of Puri. The corollary, therefore, would be that such alienation, if proposed to be made, would be governed by the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 16 of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, which provides as follows:-