# SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v. SIDDHA MATH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2015] 15 S.C.R. 46
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2015-12-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7729 of 2009
- **Bench:** V. Gopala Gowda, C. Nagappan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sri-jagannath-temple-managing-committee-v-siddha-math-ors-30371
- **Pages:** 56

## Headnote

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 respondentE 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 perH
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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 101,738. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

[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 respondentE 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 perH
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 3A of the OEA Act, 1951 is
quashed to the extent, it applies to the lands and estate
D of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri. The striking down of
. the first part of the proviso to Section2(oo) and quashing
, of the notification would be prospective and this
judgment shall not be applicable to the settled claim of
the claimants hitherto under the provisions of the OEA
E Act of 1951 in so far as the lands of the Lord Jagannath
Temple at Puri are concerned. [Para 34] [1361-E-F]
2.1 The decision of this Court in the case of* Lord
Jagannath does not bar the instant case by res judicata.
F In the Lord Jagannath case, this Court was concerned
only with the validity of the vesting notification dated
18.03.197 4, whereas in the instant case, the validity of
the order dated 30.11.1992 is examined, along with the
question whether land once vested for a particular
G purpose, namely, as property of Lord Jagannath can be
divested by operation of another legislation. Since the
subject matter of the two cases is not identical, the bar
of res judicata does not operate on the proceedings in
the instant case. It is well settled law that a qu~stion of·
H
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
49
SIDDHA MATH & ORS.
law can be raised at any time during the proceedings. A
[Para 15] [1334-G-H; 1335-G-H; 1336-A-B]
2.2 The 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 B
the estate of Lord Jagannath is per-incuriam for nonconsideration of the provisions of Sections 5 and 33 of
the Temple Act, 1955 and the law laid down by this Court
as regards between the two State enactments, which
one will be the Special Act over other. While the. doctrine C
of stare decisis is crucial to maintain judicial discipline,
what cannot be lost sight of the fact-is that decisions
which are rendered in ignorance of existing statutes and
law laid down by. this Court cannot bind subsequent
Benches of this Court. It becomes clear that a judgment D
can be said to be per incuriam when it is passed in
forgetfulness or ignorance of a statute operating in that
field. The notification dated 18.03.197 4 vested the estates
of Lord Jagannath, Puri in the State Government in view
of the amended provision ofthe proviso to Section 2( oo)
E
of the OEAAct, 1951 inserted by way of an Amendment
in the year 1974. The judgment in the case of Lord
Jagannath was passed orily on consideration of the OEA
Act, 1951. The provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, which
is the principal Act that applies to the Lord Jagannath F
Temple, Puri were not adverted to at all. [Para 16] [1336-.
E-G; 1337-C-D]
*Lord Jagannath through Jagannath Singri
Narasingh Das Mahapatra Sridhar Panda and Ors
G
v. State of Orissa 1989 ( 1) Suppl.Sec 553 : 1988
(3) Suppl. SCR 732 - per incuriam.
2.3 The Temple and the Math are two distinct legal
entities. The OEAAct, 1951 was enacted to provide for H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A the abolition of all rights, title and interest in the land of
intermediaries and vesting the same in the State. Keeping
in view the growing irregularities in the management of
the affairs of the temple, the Temple Act, 1955 was
. enacted by the state, which received the assent of the
B President on 15.10.1955. As far as the Jagannath Temple
of Puri and its endowments are concerned, the
provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, being the special law,
take priority over the provisions of any other legislation
is accepted. Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955 makes it
C clear that the properties and endowments of the Temple
stand statutorily vested in the Temple Committee. [Para
21] [1341-F-G; 1343-E]
2.4 It cannot be said that the provisions of the OEA
D Act, 1951 would apply to the land of the appellant Temple
Committee over the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955,
which is clearly the special legislation. A perusal of the
objects and reasons of the 1951 Act makes it clear that
the said amendment clearly encroaches upon the field
E of the Temple Act, 1955. The said amendment has been
enacted with a view to ensuring the proper performance
of traditional rites and rituals in the religious institutions.
As far as the Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri, the State
F Legislature had already enacted the Temple Act, 1955
and vested the land belonging to the Temple in the
Temple Management Committee by virtue of ss. 5 and
33 of the Act of 1955. The object of the Act was to provide
for better administration and governance of the affairs
G of the Temple and its properties. Thus, proviso to Section
2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951, by which the estates
belonging to the Temple of Lord Jagannath, Puri within
the meaning of the Temple Act, 1955 are deemed to be
Trust Estates is in direct contravention and subversion ·
H of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955. Even the
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
51
SIDDHAMATH & ORS.
submission that a subsequent legislation takes A
precedence over a prior decision is untenable in law.
[Para 22] [1345-D; 1346-A-E]
2.5 In the instant case, there is a clear conflict
between the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act,
B
1951 and Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955. It is
also clear that both the above statutory provisions of
the Acts cannot survive together. While the rule of
harmonious construction must be given effect to as far
as possible, when the provisions of two statutes are C
irreconcilable, it needs to be decided as to which
provision must be given effect to. In the instant case,
Section 2(oo) proviso in its entirety is not violative of the
provisions of the Temple Act. It is only the first part of
the proviso which is in contravention of the Temple Act, D
1955. If that part of the proviso continues to be given
effect, Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955, by
which the estates of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri are
vested in the Temple Committee will lose their meaning.
By striking down Section 2(oo) proviso to that extent, E
both the provisions will be able to operate. [Para 23]
[1349-D-E; 1350-A-B]
2.6 The first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of
the OEAAct, 1951 cannot be allowed to sustain. Clearly,
F
the intention of the legislature could not have been to
render virtually the entire Temple Act, enacted on the
specific subject, meaningless, by way of enacting a
proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 as an
amendment in 1974, which is the general legislation in G
the instant case. Section 2( oo) of the OEAAct, 1951, thus,
to that extent requires to be struck down so that both
the OEAAct, 1951 as well as the Temple Act, 1955 can be
given due effec~ in their respective field of operation. In
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A exercise of the powers conferred under Article 142 of
the Constitution, this Court can pass any order as may
be "necessary for doing complete justice" in a case
before it. [Para 24] [1352-B-E]
B
2.7 Once a property is vested by an Act of
legislature, to achieve the laudable object, the same
cannot be divested by the enactment of any subsequent
general law and vest such property under such law.
Similarly, if in the instant case, the submissions on behalf
C of the respondent Math were accepted, then Sections 5
and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955would be rendered useless
and nugatory and thereby the laudable object and
intendment of the Temple Act would be defeated and the
interest of the public at large would be affected. Thus,
D the notification dated 18.03.1974 issued by the State
Government under Section 3-A of the OEA Act, 1951,
whereby the estate of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije,
Puri vested in the State Government is quashed to that
extent. As a consequence, the order dated 30.09.1981
E passed by the OEA Tahsildar, who falls within the
inclusive definition of Collector in terms of Section 2 (d)
of the OEAAct, 1951, settling the land in favour of the
Mahantas of various Maths as Marfatdars of the Shri
Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije, Puri is in violation of the
F provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 and is set aside. [Para
25] [1352-G-H; 1353-A·C]
3.1 The Form 'H' submitted in terms of the OEAAct,
1951 in Claim Case No. 58 of 1975 reveals that while
G Column 9-whether with respect to the lands in
possession of the applicant or his temporary lessee or
mortagagee on the date of vesting]" is marked as 'Self
Possession', and Column 11-lf in the possession of a
temporary lessee or mortgagee give full details of the
H
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
53
SIDDHAMATH & ORS.
lessee or mortgage, has been left blank. Therefore, the A
claim of the respondent Math and the basis of its claim
is not stated in the claim petition. In the absence of the
same, its claim as intermediary to prefer claim under
Sections 5, 6, 7, 8 of the OEA Act, 1951 before the
Tahsildar is wholly untenable in law. Further, the order, B
passed in OEA Claim Case filed by the respondent Math
to settle the lands in their favour has been passed by
the Tahsildar, Puri. S~ction 8-Aof the Act clearly provides
that the claims have to be filed before the Collector. The
submission that the definition of Collector in the OEA C
Act, 1951 is an inclusive one, and therefore he had the
authority to determine the rights of the respondent, ·
cannot be accepted. The proceedings under Section 8A are quasi judicial in nature. [Para 29] [1355-C-H]
D
3.2 A quasi judicial function cannot be delegated
and therefore, the inclusive reading of the definition of
Collector under Section 2(d) of the OEAAct, 1951 to also
include Tahsildar can be applied only as far as it pertains
to the discharge of administrative powers of the E
Collector. Since the Tahsildar performs only an
administrative function under the OEAAct, 1951 and not
a quasi judicial function, thus, .he was not competent to
pass the order of settlement of claim either under Section F
6 or 7 or 8 of the OEA Act, 1951. The vesting of the suit
lands in favour of the Math is bad in law. Further, once
the land already vested in the Temple Committee under
Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 which is a
special enactment to deal with the properties endowed G
to the appellant Temple Committee, the same could not
haye been divested by applying the provisions of the
OEA Act, 1951 by way of an amendment to the Act by
insertion of Sections 2(oo) and 3A in the OEAAct, 1951, ·
as the operation of the said Act and the Temple Act, 1955 H
54
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A are in different fields and the objects and intendment of
. the abovementioned two Acts are entirely different.
[Paras 30, 31) [1356-C-D; 1357-B·D]
3.2 The point no. 1 being held in favour of the
B Temple, there was no need for the Temple Committee to
file claim proceedings under Section 8-A of the OEAAct,
1951, in respect of its own lands which were already
vested in it under Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955. The
suit lands vest in the Temple Committee itself. Thus, in
C view of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955, the
settlement of the suit lands in favour of the respondent
Math cannot be sustained, as it is bad in law. [Para 31)
[1360-C-D)
o
3.3 Since the provisions of the OEAAct, 1951 have
no application to the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple
at Puri, there is no need to pass an order in favour of the
Temple under the OEAAct, 1951 as the suit lands were
already vested in favour of the Lord Jagannath Temple
E at Puri by virtue of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955.
F
G
H
[Para 33) [1360-G-H]
Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa AIR 1964
SC 150; Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v.
Surjanarayan Das AIR 1967 SC 256 : 1966
SCR 436; State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi
Kassab Jamat (2005) 8 SCC 534 : 2005 (4 )
Suppl. SCR 582; R. Unnikrishnan v. V.K.
Mahanudevan (2014) 4 SCC 434 : 2014 (1 )
SCR 350; Muncipa/ Corporation of Delhi v.
Gurnam Kaur(1989) 1SCC101 : 1988 (2) Suppl.
SCR 929; State of U.P v. Synthetics and
Chemicals Ltd. (1991) 4 SCC 139; Fuerst Day
Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2001) 6 SCC
356: 2001 (3) SCR 479; Sheodan Singh v. Daryao
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITIEE v.
SIDDHA MATH & ORS.
Kunwar AIR 1966 SC 1332 : 1966 SCR 300;
Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai & Ors. v. Mohd.Hanifa
& Ors. AIR 1976 SC 1569: 1976 (3) SCR 721;
National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar
Badrikumar Jagad (2011) 12 SCC 695 : 2012 (14)
SCR 472; U.P State Electricity Board & Anr. v.
Hari Shankar Jain & Ors. (1978) 4 SCC 16 : 1979
( 2 ) SCR 355; Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan
v. Binani Cements Ltd. & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 319
: 2014 (3) SCR 1; KC Gajapati Narayan Dea &
Ors. v. State of Orissa AIR 1953 SC 375: 1954
SCR 1; UC v. D. J. Bahadur AIR 1980 SC 2181
: 1981 (1) SCR 1083; Commercial Tax Officer v.
Binani Cements Ud. (2014) 8 SCC 319 : 2G14
(3) SCR 1; J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving
Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (1961) 3 SCR 185;
Bharat Bihari Mishra v. State of Orissa 2012 (II)
OLR 968; Basanti Kumar Sahu v. State of Orissa
(1998) 8 SCC 722; Calcutta Gas Company Ltd.
v. State of West Bengal AIR 1962 SC 1044: 1962
Suppl. SCR 1 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1988 (3) Suppl. SCR 732 '
referred to
Para 1
AIR 1964 SC 150
referred to
Para 6
1966 SCR 436
referred to
Para 9
2005 (4) Suppl. SCR 582
referred to
Para 11
2014 (1) SCR 350
referred to
Para 11
1988 (2) Suppl. SCR 929.
referred to
Para 13
(1991) 4 sec 139
referred to
Para 13
2001 (3) SCR 479
referred to
Para 13
1966 SCR 300
referred to
Para 15
55
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
56
A
B
c
D
E
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15S.C.R.
1976 (3)"SCR 721
referred to
Para 15
2012 (14) SCR 472
referred to
Para 15
1979 (2) SCR 355
referred to
Para 17
2014 (3) SCR 1
referred to
Para 17
1954 SCR 1
referred to
Para 21
1981 (1) SCR 1083
referred to
Para 22
2014 (3) SCR 1
referred to
Para 23
(1961) 3 SCR 185
referred to
Para 23
2012 (II) OLR 968
referred to
Para 29
(1998) 8 sec 122
referred to
Para 30
1962 Suppl. SCR 1
referred to
Para 31
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7729 of 2009
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.07.2009 of the
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in OJC No. 2421 of 2000
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 7730 of 2009, 142, 221, 2981, 3414,
3415, 3446 and 9627 of 2010 and 14631-14632 of 2015.
H.P. Raval, J. K. Das, M. L. Varma, M.·L. Verma, Sr.
Advs., S. K. Das, Swetaketu Mishra, Anando Mukherjee, Ms.
Divya Anand, Nipun Saxena, Anirush Sharma, V. K. Monga,
F
Sandeep Das, Shibashish Misra, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Radha
Shyam Jena, Vinoo Bhagat, Rutwik Panda, Anshu Maiik,
Rajdipa Behura, V. S. Lakshmi, A. Venayagam Balan, Atul
Kumar, A. Mukherjee, Ms. Gargi Tuli, Pulak Bagchi, S. K.
Verma, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Satya Mitra, Kunal Verma,
G Prasanna Mohan, Ms. Keki Vajpei, Ms. Rajdipa Behura, V. S.
H
Lakshmi, Ashok Panigrahi, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Raj iv S. Roy,
Pranab Kumar Mullick, A. Jyoti Chatterjee, Sukumar, Soma
Mullick, Jayasree Saha Chatterjee, Abhijit S. Roy, Sebat
Kumar Deuria, C. K. Sasi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
57
SIDDHA MATH & ORS.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. Leave granted in the Special
Leave Petitions.
2. The present appeals arise out of the impugned
judgment and order dated 07.07.2009 passed in Original
B
Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000 and other Writ Petitions
which were disposed of in terms of the judgment dated
07 .07 .2009 by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, whereby
the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the
respondents he~ein and held that as the disputed land was C
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.
3. As the facts in all the appeals are common, for the
sake of corivenience, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.
7729 of 2009, which are stated inbrief hereunder: ,
The present case revolves around the ancient temple of
D
E
Lord Jagannath of Puri. The lands in question have been
accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi' properties. On
18.03.1974, the State Government of Orissa issued a
notification under Section 3-A of the Orissa Estate Abolition
F
Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "OEA Act, 1951 "),
whereby the estate of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri
vested in the State Government. The vesting notification was
challenged by the Temple before the High Court of Orissa in
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 233 of 1977. The High Court G
rejected the claim of the Temple. The same was upheld by this
Court vide its judgment in the case of Lord Jagannath
through Jagannath Singri Narasingh Das Mahapatra
Sridhar Panda and Ors v. State of Orissa1• We will advert to
'1989 (1) Suppl.sec 553
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A
this judgment in detail at a later part of this judgment. The State
Government of Orissa subsequently issued a notification dated
18.04.1989 and extended the time for filing claims under
Section 8-Aofthe OEAAct, within which the Temple filed Claim
Case No. 68 of 1990 for recording the lands in question in
B favour of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, Marfat
Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee. Vide order
dated 30.11.1992, the OEA Collector and Tahsildar, Puri
observed that the suit lands in question have been recorded
in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Srikhetra,
C and accordingly settled the suit lands in favour of the Temple.
In the year 2000, the respondent-Math filed a Writ Petition
before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Original
Jurisdiction Case No. 2421 of 2000, challenging the order of
0
the Tahsildar dated 30.11.1992 on the ground that the lands in
question have been accorded the status of 'amrutamanohi'
and that they were recorded as Trust Estate as defined under
Section 2( oo) of the OEAAct, 1951 and that lands had wrongly
been settled in favour of the Temple. The High Court by the
E
impugned judgment dated 07.07.2009 set aside the order of
the Tahsildar dated 30.11.1992 and held as under:
F
G
H
" ...... it is seen in the instant case, the property has been
dedicated as Amrutmonahi to Lord Sri Jagannath of
Puri and the marfatdar of the property is Mahanta
Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das. Thus, the property is
attached with a charge of rendering service to Lord
Jagannath by using the usufructs thereof as food offering
. to Lord Jagannath by using the usufructs threof as food
offering to Lord Jagannath. It is further found that on the
above analysis, 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 and the
trustee has to fulfil the wish of the dedicator of the said
property by offering the usufructs to Lord Jagannath as
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
59
SIDDHAMATH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
food offering. However, since the trustee/marfatdar is
A
the Mahanta of Siddha Math, it cannot be said that the
math has absolutely no interest over the said property
just because it is recorded as Amrutmonohi. Applying
the ratio of the decision in the case of Mahanta Shri
Srinivas Ramanuj Das (supra) of the Supreme Court, it
B
is seen that the Siddha Math is an institution, which
comes within the definition of 'Math' as given in section
3 (vii) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act,
1951. The property involved in this Writ Petition comes
within the definition of"Trust Estate" as defined in section C
2(oo) of the O.E.A Act and vested in the State
Government pursuant to the notification made under
Section 3-Aofthe O.E.AAct issued on 18.03.1974. It is
also an admitted position that upon such vesting, the
D
· intermediary had a right to make an application under
sections 6 and 7 of the O.E.AAct. As a matter of fact,
as stated earlier, such application was made by the
marfatdar of the property, i.e Mahanta of Siddha Math
and the land was settled in the name of Shri Jagannath
E
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.AActforre-settlementofthe land and the impugned
F
order dated 30.11.1992 having been passed without
jurisdiction cannot be sustained and the said order is
accordingly quashed."
Hence, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant G
Temple and State Government and others.
4. We have heard the learned senior counsel for both,
the parties. We have also heard Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Math in the C.As. @
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9167-9168 of 2010 and
Ms. V.S. Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Math in .C.A. No. 9627 of 2010. On the basis of the factual
evidence on record produced before us, the circumstan.ces of
the case and also in the light of the rival legal contentions urged
B by the learned senior counsel for both the parties, we have
broadly framed the following points which require our attention
and consideration:-
c
D
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 OEAAct,
1951 by virtue of being an intermediary?
3) What order?
Answer to Point No.1
E
5. At the outset, before we advert to the rival legal
contentions of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of both the parties, it is important for us to examine the
provisions of the relevant Acts, as well as the previous
judgments of this Court on the issue. There are two important
F
acts which operate in the instant case. The first is the Shri
Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Temple Act, 1955"). The long title of the Act reads as follows:
"An Act to provide for better administration and
·G
governance of Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri and its
endowments."
The Preamble of the Temple Act, 1955 states as under:
"Whereas the ancient Temple of Lord Jagannath of
H
Puri has ever since its inception been an institution of
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
61
SIDDHAMATH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.)
unique national importance in which millions of Hindu A
devotees from regions far and wide have reposed their
faith and belief and have regarded it as the epitome of
their tradition and culture.
And whereas by Regulation IV of 1809 passed by the
B
Governor-General in Council on 28th April, 1809 and
thereafter by other laws and regulations and in
pursuance of arrangement entered into with the Raja of
Khurda, later designated the Raja of Puri, the said Raja
came to be entrusted hereditary with the management c
of the affairs of the Temple and its properties as
Superintendent subject to the control and supervision
of the ruling power;
And whereas in view of grave and serious irregularities
thereafter Government had to intervene on various D
occasions in the past; And whereas the administration
under the Superintendent has further deteriorated and
a situation has arisen rendering it expedient to
reorganize the scheme of management of the affairs of
the Temple and its properties and provide better E
administration and governance therefore in
supersession of all previous laws. regulations and
arrangements, having regard to the ancient customs and
usages and the unique and traditional nitis and rituals
F
contained in the Record-of-Rights prepared under the
.
-
Puri Shri Jagannath Temple (Administration)Act, 1952
(OrissaActXIVof 1952) ............ "
(emphasis laid by this Court)
Section 2 of the Temple Act, 1955 bars the operation of the G
Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 on the Temple,
and reads as follows:
"2 (1): The provisions of the Orissa Hindu Religious
Endowments Act, 1951 (Orissa Act 2 of 1952) shall
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A
cease to apply to the said Temple except with respect
to actions taken, things done and contributions levied
and the same shall be deemed to have been validly
taken, done and levied as if this Act had not been
B
passed:
(2) All laws, regulations and other enactments passed
for the purpose of providing for the management of the
affairs of the Temple and its properties and all deeds
executed in favour of and all arrangements entered into
c
for the said purpose with the Raja of Khurda or the Raja
of Puri, as the case may be, prior to the commencement
of this Act, in so far as such enactments, deeds or
arrangements are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act, shall cease to have any effect."
D
E
F
Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955 provides for the setting up
of a Temple Managing Committee as under:
"5. Notwithstanding anything in any other law for the time
being in force or custom, usage or contract, Sanad,
deed or engagement, the administration and the
governance c:if the Temple and its endowments shall vest
in a Committee called the Shri Jagannath Temple
Managing Committee constituted as such by the State
Government, and it shall have the rights and privileges
in respect thereof as provided in Section 33."
Section 30 of the Temple Act, 1955 grants power of general
superintendence of the Temple and its endowments to the State
Government which may pass orders for the maintenance and
G administration of the temple, which reads as under:
H
"30. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act the general
superintendence of the Temple and its endowments shall
vest in the State Government which may pass any orders
that may be deemed necessary for the proper
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
63
SIDDHA MATH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
maintenance or administration of the Temple or its A
endowments or in the interest of the general public
worshipping in the Temple."
Section 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 empowers the Committee
to be in possession of all the moveable and immoveable B
properties belonging to the Temple. It reads as under:
"33. (1) The Committee shall be entitled to take and be
in possession of all movable and immovable properties
including the Ratna Bhandar and funds and jewelries,
C
records, documents and other assets belonging to
Temple."
. 6. A Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion
to examine the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 in detail,
0
while adjudicating upon its constitutional validity in the case of
Raja Bira Kishore Deb v. State of Orissa2• 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 E
of the secular affairs of the Temple and does not
interfere, with the religious affairs thereof, which have
to be performed according to the record of rights
prepared under the Act of 1952 and where there i
s
no such record of rights in accordance with custom and
F
usage obtaining in the Temple. It is in this background
that we have to consider the attack on the
constitutionality of the Act."
After adverting to the history of the administration of the Temple,
G
it was also held:
"Finally the preamble says that the administration under
the superintendent has further deteriorated and a
2 AIR 1964 SC 1501
H
64
A
B
c
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
situation has arisen rendering it expedient to reorganize
the scheme of management of the affairs of the Temple
and its properties and provide better administration and
governance therefore in supersession of all previous
laws. regulations and arrangements. having regard to
the ancient customs and usages and the unique and
traditional nitis and rituals contained in the record of
rights prepared under the 1952 Act. So for all these
reasons the appellant was removed from the sole
superintendence of the Temple and a committee was
appointed bys. 6 of the Act for its management."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
A perusal of the provisions of the Act and the decision of this
Court in the case of Raja Bira Kishore Deb referred to supra
D clearly shows that as far as Shri Jagannath Temple of Puri is
concerned, the position of law is that all the endowments and
properties belonging to the Temple vest in the Shri Jagannath
Temple Managing Committee.
E
F
G
H
7. We now turn our attention to the OEAAct, 1951. The
Act received the assent of the President on 23.01.1952. The
long title of the Act reads as follows:
"An act to provide for the abolition of all the rights, title
and interest in land of intermediaries by whatever name
known, including the mortgagees and lessees of such
interest, between the raiyat and the state of Orissa, for
vesting in the said state of the said right, title and interest
and to make provision for other matter connected
therewith ...... "
All estates of the intermediaries were thus, abolished and by
way of a notification, stood vested in the State Government.
Section 2(oo) of the OEAAct, 1951 (which was ins.erted by
way of an Amendment in 197 4) defines a Trust Estate as under:
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
65
SIDDHAMATH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
'"trust estate' means an estate the whole of the net A
income whereof under any trust or other legal obligation
has been dedicated exclusively to charitable or religious
purposes of a public nature without any reservation of
pecuniary benefit to any individual :
B
Provided that all estates belonging to the Temple of Lord
Jagannath at Puri within the meaning of the Shri
Jagannath Temple Act. 1955 and all estates declared
to be trust estates by a competent authority under this
Act prior to the date of coming into force of the Orissa c
Estates Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1970 shall be
deemed to be trust estates."
(emphasis laid by this Court)
Section 3 of the OEA Act, 1951 provides for vesting of an
D
estate in the State by way of a notification as under:
"3. Notification vesting an estate in the State- (1)
The State Government, may from time to time by
notification, declare that the estate specified in the
E
notification has passed to and become vested in the
State free from all encumbrances."
"(3) Such publication shall be conclusive evidence of
the notice of the declaration to everybody whose interest
is affected by it."
F
8. Section 2(oo)was inserted byway of an amendment
on 26.02.1974. On 18.03.1974, a notification was issued by
the State Government under Section 3-A whereby the estate
of Lord Jagannath vested with the State Government. The G
validity of the notification was challenged, which came for
consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Lord Jagannath referred to supra. This Court upheld the
validity of the notification declaring the estate of Lord Jagannath
as 'trust estate' after giving the reasons as follows:
H
66
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 15 S.C.R.
A
"It is true that an order was passed under s.13-G
declaring the petitioner's estate as a trust estate" and
further by the insertion of clause (oo) in s 2 the
petitioner's estate continued to be a 'trust estate'', but
the question is as to what is the legal effect flowing from
B
such a declaration This aspect is dealt within s.13-1,
which is quoted as under (omitting sub-section (2) which
is not relevant in the present context):
"13-1. Effect of orders passed under section 13-G: (I)
C
All estates declared under this Chapter to be trust
estates by the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case
may be; shall he deemed to have been excluded
from the operation of the vesting notification and never
D
to have vested in the State in pursuance thereof."
It is manifest from the language of the Section that it
saves a "trust estate" so declared under s.13-G from
the operation of a notification issued under s. 3 or 3-A,
but does not extend the benefit any further The provisions
E
do not confer protection from the Act itself and cannot
be interpreted to clothe it with a permanent immunity
from being vested by a later notification issued under
the Act Such an estate could be vested in the State of
Orissa by a subsequent notification was made clear by
F
clause (b) of s 13-K which reads as follows:
G
H
'(a) ...
(b)nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to debar
the State Government from vesting any trust estate by
the issue of a notification under Section 3.'
Sections 7 -A, 8-A, 8-D and X-E of the Act include special
provisions for a trust estate and unmistakably indicate
that trust estates" are within the purview of the Act. The
SRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING COMMITTEE v.
67
SIDDHA MATH & ORS. [V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.]
benefit they receive from a declaration under s.13-G is A
limited and referable only to a vesting notification issued
earlier. There is thus, no merit in the argument of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner's
estate could not be vested in the State by a notification
issued subsequently."
B
It is important to note at this stage that while upholding the
validity of the notification, this C9urt did not advert to the
provisions of the Temple Act, 1955 at all.
9. Another judgment of this Court which is important to
be examined is the Constitution Bench decision in the case of
Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surjanarayan Das3,
which examined the nature of 'amrutamanohi'properties.
c
10. Mr. M. L. Varma, the learned senior counsel D
appearing on behalf of the respondent Math contends that the
· controversy in the instant case is squarely covered by two
judgments of this Court, the Division Bench judgment in the
case of Lord Jagannath and the Constitution Bench judgment E
in the case of Surjanarayan Das referred to supra. The
learned senior counsel places strong reliance on the following
paragraphs of the decision in the case of Surjanarayan Das
(supra):
"40. We may now consider the properties in schedule
F
Kha said to be the Amruta Monohi properties of Lord
Jagannath and held by the plaintiff as marfatdar. The
plaintiff alleges that these properties were acquired
either by purchase or 'krayadan' or by way of gift subject G
to a charge of some offering to Lord Jagannath which
depended upon the individual judgment and discretion
of the plaintiff, and that the public had no concern with
the enjoyment or management of the usufruct thereof.
3 AIR 1967 SC 256
H
68
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015) 15 S.C.R.
A
The Gazetteer makes a reference to such properties
and states:-
'Both Saiva and Vaishnava Maths exist in Puri. The
lands of the latter are known asAmruta Manohi (literally
B
nectar food), because they were given with the
intention that the proceeds thereof should be spent in
offering bhoga before Jagannath and that the
Mahaprasad thus.obtained should be distributed
among pilgrims, beggars and ascetics; they are
c
distinct from the Amrut Manohi lands of the Temple
itself which are under the superintendence of the Raja.'
This statement makes it clear that lands endowed to
the temple of Lord Jagannath are distinct from the lands
D
or property endowed to the Vaishnava Maths for the
purpose of utilising the proceeds of those properties
for offering bhoga before Lord Jagannath and the
subsequent distribution of that Mahaprasad among
pilgrims, beggars and ascetics, presumably visiting the
E
Math, or approaching its authorities for a po.rtion of the
Maha Prasad. The mere fact that the proceeds of the
properties were to be so used, would not justify the
conclusion that these properties were not endowed to
the Maths but were endowed to the temple of Lord
F
Jagannath.