Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The Government of Orissa subsequently issued a notification dated 18th April 1989 extending the time for filing cases under Section 8A of the OEA Act. It is within this extended time that the Administrator of Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri filed the aforementioned OEA Claim Case No.173 of 1990. The Tahasildar taking note of Section 5 of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act,1955 corrected the record of rights (ROR) in favour of Opposite Party No.1 namely Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri Marfatdar Managing Committee Sri Jagannath Temple, Puri.

8. Section 5 of Shri Jagannath Temple Act reads as under:

"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."

28. The insertion of Section 2(oo) by the amendment of 1974 was disapproved by the Supreme Court in Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math (supra). It set aside the settlement of land belonging to the Temple in favour of various Maths as Marfatdars of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri and held this to be in violation of Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955. The Supreme Court went to the extent of holding that there was no need for the Temple Committee to file a claim proceeding under Section 8A of the OEA Act in respect of its own lands which were already vested in it under Section 5 of the Temple Act of 1955. It was categorically held "the suit land vests in the temple committee itself".

29. The upshot of the discussion in Sri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math (supra) is that with the land already being recognized as having "Amrutamanohi" status there was nothing more to be done as far as Opposite Party No.1 was concerned. The registered lease deed itself recognized this status. The suit land vested on 18th March 1974 and is governed by the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955.

30. As rightly pointed out concurrently by the Tahasildar, the ADM and the Board of Revenue, there was no basis for Niladri Sahu to have executed the permanent lease deed. There was no valid title to be conveyed by the Jagannath Puri Gosala in favour of the present Petitioners. The registered sale deeds were, therefore, void ab initio. Section 5 of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act is categorical and therefore any attempt to convey title contrary thereto cannot have any validity in the eye of law.