Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951:
s. 19 – Alienation of immovable Trust property – Application u/s. 19 on behalf of Diety by fit person seeking permission to sell the property belonging to the Diety, admeasuring 4 acres 255 decimals – Appellant also filed affidavit claiming to be in possession of the property as a tenant for last 40 years – In enquiry report, Inspector Endowments assessed the value of the land in the range of 5 to 5.50 lakhs per acre and found that if sale of the property were sanctioned, it would be beneficial for the institution – Commissioner Endowments accorded permission to sell the property fixing Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as upset price and offered first choice to purchase to the appellant-tenant – After lapse of statutory period to file appeal against the order of the Commissioner, sale deeds were executed in favour of the appellants in respect of land admeasuring 2 acres 19 decimals – In a pending appeal against the order of the Commissioner and suo motu proceeding initiated by the State Government, intervention applications were filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 offering to buy a piece of the suit land admeasuring 619 decimals at the rate of Rs. 30 lakhs per acre – The intervention application was rejected by the State Government – Order of State Government challenged in writ petition by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 taking the ground that the appellant was not a tenant and that they were willing to offer the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge of High Court – Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by Division Bench of High Court holding that there was no evidence to show that the appellant was tenant and directed the Commissioner, Endowments to put the total land for public auction at the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs pr acre – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held : Division Bench of High Court has committed a manifest error of law and of facts in setting aside concurrent findings and hence is legally not sustainable – The lucrative offer made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 appears to be only to frustrate the action of respondent-authority – The procedure opted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be countenanced to nullify the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the appellant after due compliance as mandated by law under the Act. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The State of Orissa with its legislative competence introduced the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 with an object to provide better administration and governance of Hindu public religious institutions and endowments in the State of Orissa. [Para 25] [317-B-C]
2. Keeping in view the paramount object of good governance, if any decision is taken to alienate the immovable trust property, an inbuilt mechanism has been provided u/s. 19 with a non obstante clause having overriding effect contained in any law to restrict the alienation of any immovably trust property belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution, unless sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution with a further restriction that no such transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so sanctioned. In the instant case, the Commissioner Endowments taking note of the affidavits filed by the respective parties and also the fact that the appellant is the tenant and in possession over the subject land since last 40 years paying bhag(share) to the deity and has shown his inclination to purchase the subject land at a price which the Commissioner Endowments may fix and took note of the report of Inspector Endowments dated 27th April, 2002 who has admitted in his report that the subject land is lying barren and no income is derived to the institution and is not in cultivable position. On the contrary, the institution used to bear the expenditure towards payment of land revenue out of the institution fund, which is an extra burden to the institution and taking note of the market value as proposed by the Inspector Endowments based on the sale statistics relating to the year 2000-2001 of Rs. 5.50 lakhs per acre and 4 years had rolled thereafter, with due diligence, granted permission for sale of the subject land with pragmatic approach by fixing the price of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and the appellant being in possession of the land was given the first choice to purchase the subject land failing which it may be put to public auction. [Paras 26 and 29] [319-F-G; 320-D-G]
3. It is correct that deity being a perpetual minor and ultimately the State authority is under an obligation to protect the interest of the minor and the deity cannot be divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory provisions leaving aside the mandate of the Act, 1951. But that is always to be examined keeping in view the parameters as mandated under the law. [Para 30] [320-G; 321-A-B]
4. The Division Bench of the High Court has committed a manifest error in not appreciating the concurrent finding noticed by the Single Bench of the High Court and has proceeded on a tangent, brushing aside the factual foundation on a price of hand offered by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 who were merely intervenors in the proceedings standing on the fence having no stakes on their shoulders, came forward just to nullify the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant by adopting the indirect method in making a public offer. To the contrary, if there was any error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents, the remedy available with the intervenors (respondent nos. 4 and 5) was to question the registered sale deed in the appropriate proceedings available under the law which certainly must have been appeared to be more cumbersome and the easy walkover was to attack the procedure adopted by the competent authority by making a stray offer with no liability to discharge. Such a procedure cannot be countenanced to nullify the registered sale deed executed in favour of the appellant after due compliance and mandated by law under Act, 1951. [Para 31] [321-B-E]
5. It has not been controverted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 that they themselves have purchased an adjoining piece of land from private owners for a consideration of Rs. 6.50 lakhs per acre on 27th December, 2006 in the given circumstances, the so called lucrative offer made by them appears to be only to frustrate the action of the respondent authority which was easily accessible to them under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 32] [321-E]
6. The factual statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 making an offer to pay Rs. 75 lakhs per acre as on today, may be taken into consideration by the respondent-authorities while taking any future action in reference to the remaining land admeasuring 2 acres 206 decimals in question, if any decision is being taken for its alienation if so required. [Para 34] [322-B-C]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.