Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. On the other hand, the respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed counter affidavits and basing upon the same the learned government pleader for endowments submits that the respondent No.3 is a public religious Institution published under Section 6(a)(ii) of the Act 30 of 1987. The temple and its properties were already registered under Section 43 of the Act 30 of 1987. The management and administration of the temple and its properties are governed by the provisions of the AP Charitable and Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987 and the Rules made BKM, J thereunder. The respondent No.3 is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.5279.57 cents covered by the survey No.275 of Adivivaram Village including the subject matter of the land.

(1) Unenfranchised inams;

(2) Enfranchised inams but liable to jody or quit rent, as the case may be;

(3) Enfranchised inams, the rent being commuted or redeemed."

2. Jagannath Temple Managing Committee vs. Siddha Math and others reported in 1979 SCC Online AP 40: (1980) 1 ALT 107 (FB) in W.P.No.1269 of 1976 dated 11.08.1979 wherein it was held as follows:

"52. 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 33 of the Temple Act, 1955. It is also clear BKM, J 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 provision of two statues 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 (2 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 Orissa Estates Abolition (Amednemnt) Act, 1970 (33 of 1970) shall be deemed to be trust estates."

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.

55. It becomes clear from a perusal of the above- mentioned two judgments of this Court in CTO v. Binani Cements Ltd., {(2014) 8 SCC 319} and J.K.Cotton Spg. And Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. V. State of UP {AIR 1961 SC 1170} cases 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.

57. 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 BKM, J 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 fo 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 Tahsidlar, 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 Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri is in violation of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 and is thus, liable to be set aside.