LexK. ARJUN DAS versus COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 307 K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 9576 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 [N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.] 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 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 307 307 A B C D E F G H 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 13 S.C.R. 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- A B C D E F G H 309 K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS. 2001 of Rs. 5.50 lakhs per
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.