LexSRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE versus SIDDHA MATH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 15S.C.R.46 A SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE B v. SIDDHA MATH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2009) DECEMBER 16, 2015 [V. GOPALA GOWDA AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 - ss. 2, 5, 33 - Orissa C Estate Abolition Act, 1951 - s.2(oo), 3, 3A- Estate of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri- Vesting of- Issuance of notification dated 18.03.1974 u/s. 3A of the OEAAct by the State Government whereby estate of Shri Jagannath vested in State Government- Said notification upheld by this Court D in the case of *Lord Jagannath - Thereafter, the temple filed claim case for recording the lands in favour of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, Temple Managing Committee - OEA Collector and Tahsildar settled the suit lands in favour of the Temple - Writ petition by respondent- E Math challenging the said order on the ground that the lands were accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi' and were recorded as Trust Estate as defined u/s. 2(oo) - High Court set aside the order of Tahsildar __: On appeal, held: Estate of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri vested in the Temple F Management Committee - State Legislature had already enacted the Temple Act, 1955 and vested the land belonging to the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri in the Temple Management Committee by virtue of ss. 5 and 33 of the Act of 1955 - Once the land already vested in the Temple G Committee u/ss. 5 and 33 of the Act of 1955 which is a special enactment to deal with the properties endowed to the Temple Committee, the same could not have been divested by applying the amended provisions-ss. 2(oo) and 3A of the OEA Act, 1951-Proviso to s. 2(00), by which the estates belonging H 46 SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v. 47 SIDDHA MATH & ORS. to the Temple of Lord Jagannath at Puri within the meaning A of the Temple Act, 1955 are deemed to be Trust Estates is in direct contravention of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, and is struck down - Notification dated 18. 03. 197 4, whereby the estate of Lord Jagannath vested in the State Government in view of the amended provision of the proviso to s. 2(oo) of B the OEA Act, is quashed to that extent -Also, the Math did not have the right to prefer claim in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate the proceedings under the OEA Act by virtue of being an intermediary - Furthermore, the decision of this Court in the case of *Lord Jagannath does not bar the C instant case by res judicata since the subject matter in the two cases are not identical - Judgment in the case of *Lord Jagan nath was passed only on consideration of the OEA Act, and provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, which is the principal 0 Act that applies to the Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri were not adverted to. Interpretation of Statutes - Rule of harmonious construction '- Held: Rule of harmonious construction must be given effect to as far as possible - When the provisions of E two statutes are irreconcilable, it needs to be decided as to which provision must be given effect to - There is a clear conflict between the proviso of s. 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 and ss. 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 - Section 2(oo) proviso in its entirety is not violative of the provisions of the · F Temple Act - Only the first part of the proviso is in contravention of the Temple Act, 1955, and to that extent is struck down and both the provisions would be able to operate. Judgment- When per incuriam - Held: Judgment can G be said to be per incuriam when it is passed in forgetfulness or ignorance of a statute operating in that field- Decision of this Court in the case of *Lord Jagannath, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the notification dated 18. 03. 197 4 in so far as it pertains to the estate of Lord Jagannath is per- H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 15 S.C.R. A incuriam for non-consideration of the provisions of ss. 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955. Doctrines I Principles - Doctrine of stare decisis - Is crucial to maintain judicial discipline - Decisions rendered 8 in ignorance of existing statutes and law laid down by this Court cannot bind subsequent Benches of this Court. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The first part of the proviso of Section c 2(oo) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, which pertains to the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri is struck down. The notification issued by the State Government under Section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.