Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner submitted that the OPLE Act does not apply since the matter concerns land governed by the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, which provides a specific mechanism for addressing encroachments.
(ii) He further submitted that the Tahasildar lacked competence, as no authorization was granted by the Temple Committee, as required by the Shree Jagannath Temple Act.
(v) The petitioner argued that the eviction order infringes upon his rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution, which protects against the deprivation of property without due process.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) It is submitted that the proceedings were initiated at the request of the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration under Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, which authorizes the application of the OPLE Act for unauthorized occupation of temple land.
(iv) He further contended that under Section 5 of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, all temple property vests with the Temple Managing Committee. The petitioner's occupation violates the rights of the temple over its property, and the eviction is consistent with the law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the records submitted for this Court's consideration. The petitioner's primary contention rests on the assertion that, being temple property, the land in question is not amenable to proceedings under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment (OPLE) Act, 1972. However, a closer scrutiny of Section 16-A of the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 unequivocally elucidates the legislative intent, affirming that the OPLE Act extends to temple lands/ thereby nullifying the petitioner's objection. The relevant excerpts of the said Act are produced herein:

10. The abovementioned judicial precedents make it abundantly clear that no individual, irrespective of the duration or nature of unauthorized occupation, can derive a legal right from an act of encroachment upon government land. In the present case, the land in question, belonging to Lord Jagannath Temple, is classified as public property, vested with the Temple Administration under the Shree Jagannath Temple Act, 1955. Temple land, being endowed for religious purposes, is accorded special protection and cannot be subjected to private encroachment. 1950 SCR 869 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK