Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Tenant Purchaser in Deity Land Sale Dispute. Upholds Sale to Tenant Despite Higher Offer from Intervenors, Holding That Registered Sale Deeds Cannot Be Ignored and Tenancy Status Was Not Challenged.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute over the sale of land belonging to the deity Sri Rama Laxman Sita Swamy Bije, managed by a fit person. The fit person sought permission under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 to sell Ac. 4.255 decimals of land, claiming it was barren and the appellant, K. Arjun Das, was a tenant in possession paying bhag (share of crop). The Commissioner of Endowments, after inquiry, fixed an upset price of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and granted permission to sell, offering first choice to the appellant as tenant. The appellant purchased Ac. 2.019 decimals by registered sale deeds on 2nd August 2005 and 30th August 2005 after the appeal period expired. Meanwhile, respondent nos. 4 and 5 (Lokesh Patro and Debendranath Patro) filed an intervention application before the State Government offering Rs. 30 lakhs per acre, but the State Government confirmed the Commissioner's order and directed public auction for the remaining land. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 then challenged the order in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. However, the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court allowed their appeal, setting aside the sale and directing a fresh public auction at Rs. 25 lakhs per acre, with respondent nos. 4 and 5 liable to purchase if the highest bid was lower. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the Division Bench erred in ignoring the registered sale deeds and the appellant's unchallenged tenancy status. The Court noted that the appellant's tenancy was admitted in the application and supported by receipts and the Inspector's report, and was never disputed. The sale deeds were executed after the limitation period for appeal expired, and the State Government had confirmed the Commissioner's order. The High Court could not reopen the sale without setting aside the registered deeds. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's order, with directions to proceed with public auction for the remaining land only.

Headnote

A) Religious Endowments - Sale of Deity Land - Section 19 Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 - Permission for Sale - The Commissioner of Endowments granted permission to sell Ac. 4.255 decimals of land belonging to the deity, fixing upset price at Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and offering first choice to the appellant as tenant. The appellant purchased Ac. 2.019 decimals after the appeal period expired. The High Court's Division Bench set aside the sale and directed public auction at Rs. 25 lakhs per acre. Held that the Division Bench erred in ignoring the registered sale deeds and the appellant's unchallenged tenancy status (Paras 1-15).

B) Religious Endowments - Revisional Power - Sub-section (5) Section 19 Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 - Limitation - The State Government's suo motu power under sub-section (5) must be exercised within 90 days of receipt of the Commissioner's order or publication. In this case, the State Government confirmed the Commissioner's order, and the sale deeds were executed thereafter. Held that the High Court could not reopen the sale after the statutory period and without setting aside the registered deeds (Paras 8-11).

C) Religious Endowments - Tenant's Rights - Section 19 Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 - Preferential Right - The appellant's tenancy was admitted in the application and supported by receipts and the Inspector's report, and was never disputed before the Commissioner or State Government. Held that the appellant had a legitimate claim to purchase the land at the fixed upset price, and the High Court's finding of no evidence of tenancy was perverse (Paras 5, 16-17).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the sale of land to the appellant and directing a fresh public auction at a higher upset price, despite the sale deeds having been executed and registered after the expiry of the limitation period for appeal and without challenging the appellant's tenancy status.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 8th April 2009, and restored the order of the Single Judge dated 25th February 2008. The Court directed that the public auction for the remaining Ac. 2.206 decimals of land be held in accordance with law, but the sale of Ac. 2.019 decimals to the appellant was upheld.

Law Points

  • Section 19 Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1951
  • Sub-section (5) Section 19
  • Rule 4 sub-rule (2) Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules 1959
  • Limitation for appeal
  • Suo motu revisional power
  • Tenant's preferential right
  • Public auction
  • Upset price fixation
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (9) 46

Civil Appeal No(s). 9576 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No(s). 9577 of 2010

2019-09-17

Rastogi, J.

K. Arjun Das

Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals against the judgment of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court directing fresh public auction of deity land at a higher upset price, setting aside the earlier sale to the appellant.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to set aside the Division Bench's judgment and uphold the sale of land to him, and the purchasers from the appellant sought protection of their rights as bonafide purchasers.

Filing Reason

The appellant and subsequent purchasers challenged the High Court's order directing a fresh public auction of the entire land, including the portion already sold to the appellant by registered sale deeds.

Previous Decisions

The Commissioner of Endowments granted permission to sell the land at Rs. 10 lakhs per acre with first choice to the appellant. The State Government confirmed this order. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the sale. The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the sale.

Issues

Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the sale of land to the appellant and directing a fresh public auction at a higher upset price, despite the sale deeds having been executed and registered after the expiry of the limitation period for appeal. Whether the appellant's tenancy status was established and could be ignored by the Division Bench. Whether the High Court could direct the sale of land already sold to the appellant without setting aside the registered sale deeds.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: The appellant was a tenant in possession for 40 years, paying bhag, and this was admitted in the application and supported by receipts and the Inspector's report. The Commissioner fixed a fair upset price after inquiry. The sale deeds were executed after the appeal period expired and the State Government confirmed the order. The Division Bench erred in ignoring these facts. Respondent nos. 4 and 5: The appellant was not a tenant, the upset price was too low, and they were willing to pay Rs. 25 lakhs per acre. The sale should be set aside and a fresh public auction conducted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Division Bench of the High Court erred in setting aside the sale of land to the appellant without considering that the sale deeds were executed and registered after the expiry of the limitation period for appeal under Section 19(4) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951, and the State Government had confirmed the Commissioner's order under Section 19(5). The appellant's tenancy status was admitted in the application and supported by evidence, and was never challenged before the Commissioner or the State Government. Therefore, the sale to the appellant was valid and could not be reopened by the High Court.

Judgment Excerpts

The Commissioner Endowments with due diligence fixed Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as upset price and accorded permission for sale. The order of the Commissioner Endowments dated 22nd February, 2005 was communicated to the State Government and also published in the manner prescribed in compliance of subsection (3) of Section 19 of the Act, 1951. Since the limitation of filing appeal against the order of Commissioner Endowments expired in terms of subsection (4) of Section 19 of the Act on 6th May, 2005, the sale deeds were executed and registered in favour of the appellant in respect of the land admeasuring Ac. 2.019 decimals on payment of Rs. 20.19 lakhs on 2nd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 respectively.

Procedural History

The fit person filed an application under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 before the Commissioner of Endowments seeking permission to sell deity land. The Commissioner granted permission on 22nd February 2005. The appellant purchased part of the land by registered sale deeds on 2nd August 2005 and 30th August 2005. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 filed an appeal before the State Government on 20th September 2005, which was dismissed on 30th May 2006. They then filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 25th February 2008. They appealed to the Division Bench, which allowed the appeal on 8th April 2009. The appellant and subsequent purchasers appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951: Section 19, Sub-section (3), Sub-section (4), Sub-section (5)
  • Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959: Rule 4 sub-rule (2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal of Tenant Purchaser in Deity Land Sale Dispute. Upholds Sale to Tenant Despite Higher Offer from Intervenors, Holding That Registered Sale Deeds Cannot Be Ignored and Tenancy Status Was Not Challenged.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Insurer's Appeal in Insurance Claim Repudiation Case Due to Non-Disclosure of Previous Claim. Duty of Utmost Good Faith Requires Full Disclosure of Material Facts in Proposal Form Under Indian Contract Act, 1872.