Case Note & Summary
The dispute centered on the settlement of certain lands in Puri, known as 'amrutamanohi' properties, which were claimed to be part of the endowments of the ancient Shri Jagannath Temple. The Temple Managing Committee, the appellant, sought to challenge the Orissa High Court's decision that quashed a settlement order dated 30.11.1992 in its favour. The lands had been recorded as belonging to Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, marfat Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das (the Math). Following the vesting of the Temple estate under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (OEA Act) in 1974, a claim was made by the Temple Committee under Section 8-A, leading to the settlement in its favour. The Math, respondent, challenged this settlement, arguing that the lands were trust estates under Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act and that the earlier settlement in the name of the deity marfat the Math was final. The High Court, in its judgment dated 07.07.2009, held that the property was a trust estate attached with a charge for service to the deity, that the Math was the marfatdar, and that the subsequent application by the Temple Committee was without jurisdiction, as there was no scope for re-settlement after the lands had been settled in the name of the deity marfat the Math. The Temple Committee and the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed two key issues: whether the lands could vest in the Math under the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, and whether the Math had the right to claim as an intermediary under the OEA Act. The Court examined the Temple Act, which vests administration of the temple and its endowments in the Managing Committee, and noted the earlier Constitution Bench decision in Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa that the Act deals with secular affairs. The Court also looked at the OEA Act provisions. However, the provided text of the judgment ends before the conclusion, and the final outcome of the appeals is not known from the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Temple Administration - Vesting of Temple Properties - Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, Sections 2, 5, 30, 33 - Whether suit lands can vest in respondent Math under the Temple Act - The Act bars application of Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, vests administration and endowments in the Managing Committee, and provides for state superintendence. The Constitution Bench in Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa held that the Act manages secular affairs without interfering with religious affairs. The court examined these provisions to determine the status of the lands. (Paras 5-6)
B) Estate Abolition - Trust Estates - Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, Sections 2(oo), 3-A, 6, 7, 8-A - Whether the Math had the right to claim as intermediary - The OEA Act abolished intermediary rights and vested estates, defining Trust Estate in Section 2(oo). The High Court had held that the Math as marfatdar had already settled the land in the name of the deity, and the subsequent settlement in favour of Temple Committee was without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court was to examine the Math's rights under the Act. (Para 7)
Issue of Consideration
1) Whether the suit lands can vest in the respondent Math in the light of the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955? 2) Whether even otherwise, the Math had the right to prefer claim rights in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate the proceedings under the OEA Act, 1951 by virtue of being an intermediary?
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Shri Jagannath Temple Act
- 1955 vests administration and endowments in the Temple Managing Committee
- OEA Act abolishes intermediary rights and defines Trust Estate
- Amrutamanohi properties are trust properties attached with charge of service to deity
- Settlement under OEA Act after earlier settlement in name of deity marfat Math is without jurisdiction
- High Court decision upheld in earlier Supreme Court ruling on vesting.
Case Details
2015 LawText (SC) (12) 73
Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2009 and connected matters
Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, Ms. V.S. Lakshmi
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over settlement of 'amrutamanohi' lands of Lord Jagannath Temple between the Temple Managing Committee and Siddha Math.
Remedy Sought
The appellant Temple Managing Committee sought to set aside the High Court's order that quashed the settlement of lands in its favour and to restore the Tahsildar's order dated 30.11.1992.
Filing Reason
The High Court allowed the Math's writ petition, holding that the settlement in favour of the Temple Committee was without jurisdiction because the lands had already been settled in the name of the deity marfat the Math.
Previous Decisions
High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 2421 of 2000 set aside Tahsildar's order dated 30.11.1992; earlier Supreme Court in Lord Jagannath v. State of Orissa upheld vesting of Temple estate under OEA Act.
Issues
Whether the suit lands can vest in the respondent Math in the light of the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955?
Whether even otherwise, the Math had the right to prefer claim rights in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate the proceedings under the OEA Act, 1951 by virtue of being an intermediary?
Submissions/Arguments
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents herein and held that as the disputed land was earlier settled in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfat Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das and thus, the subsequent settlement made in favour of the Temple Managing Committee in OEA Claim Case No. 68/90 was without jurisdiction.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2009 set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 30.11.1992 and held as under: ... the property cannot be held to be under the control of the administrator of Shri Jagannath Temple but is a trust property attached with a charge ... the land was settled in the name of Shri Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri marfat Mahanta Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das. Hence there was no scope for the administrator of Shri Jagannath Temple to make a subsequent application under sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.A Act for re-settlement of the land and the impugned order dated 30.11.1992 having been passed without jurisdiction cannot be sustained and the said order is accordingly quashed.
The long title of the Temple Act reads as follows: 'An Act to provide for better administration and governance of Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri and its endowments.'
Section 2 of the Temple Act, 1955 bars the operation of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 on the Temple
A Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to examine the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 in detail, while adjudicating upon its constitutional validity in the case of Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa. Wanchoo, J., speaking for the bench observed as under: 'This review of the provisions of the Act shows that broadly speaking the Act provides for the management of the secular affairs of the Temple and does not interfere, with the religious affairs thereof'
Procedural History
On 18.03.1974, State Government of Orissa issued notification under Section 3-A of OEA Act vesting the estate of Lord Jagannath Temple in State Government. The vesting was challenged before High Court in OJC No. 233 of 1977, which rejected the Temple's claim; the Supreme Court upheld that decision in 1989 in Lord Jagannath v. State of Orissa. On 18.04.1989, State Government extended time for filing claims under Section 8-A of OEA Act. The Temple filed Claim Case No. 68 of 1990, and the OEA Collector on 30.11.1992 settled the lands in favour of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri Marfat Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee. In 2000, the Math filed OJC No. 2421 of 2000 before the High Court of Orissa challenging that order. The High Court by judgment dated 07.07.2009 allowed the writ petition and quashed the settlement. The Temple Managing Committee and State Government then filed appeals before the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951: Section 2(oo), Section 3-A, Section 6, Section 7, Section 8-A
- Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955: Section 2, Section 5, Section 30, Section 33
- Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951: Section 3(vii)
- Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952:
