Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
LORD JAGANNATH THROUGH JAGANNATH SINARINARASINGH DAS MAHAPAT
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1988
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
BENCH:
SHARMA, L.M. (J)
SINGH, K.N. (J)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 464 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 732
1989 SCC Supl. (1) 553 JT 1988 (4) 296
1988 SCALE (2)1191
ACT:
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951: Sections 3A, 7A, 8D,
8E, 131 and 13G--Estate of Lord Jagannath--Whether has
vested in the State of Orissa.
HEADNOTE:
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 was enacted to
abolish all the rights in the land of intermediaries between
the raiyats and the State of Orissa by whatever name known
and for vesting the same in the State. Section 3 authorises
the State Government to declare by a notification any estate
specified therein to have passed to and become vested in the
same State, i.e., the intermediary concerned is divested of
the notified interests and becomes entitled to compensation.
By an amendment s. 3-A was included in the Act permitting
the State Government to issue a single notification in
respect of a class or classes of intermediaries in the whole
or a part of the State. By a further amendment in 1963
Chapter Il-A was inserted in the Act making special
provisions for public trusts. Clause (e) of s.13-A described
"trust-estate". provisions were made in Chapter II-A for
entertaining claims and determining the nature of the
estates claimed to be trust estates and announcing the
decision by notification. The effect of such a
determination was. as mentioned in s. 13 , to save the
estate from vesting under a notification issued under s. 3
or 3-A.
A notification under s. 3 of the Act was issued in
respect of the estate of Lord Jagannath on 27-4-1963, and on
the same date another notification under s. 13-C., Chapter
lI-A followed declaring the estate as "trust estate". The
consequence was the diety was not divested of the estate. In
1970 Chapter Il-A was repealed. By insertion of clause (oo)
in s. 2 in 1974 the said estate continued to be "trust
estate." On 18.3.1974 a notification under s. 3-A was issued
declaring the estate of the diety to have vested in the
State.
A writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging
the validity of the said notification, which was dismissed.
PG NO 732
PG NO 733
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant
it was contended that as a result of the decision under
chapter Il-A declaring Lord Jagannath’s estate a "trust
estate" the same must be deemed to have been excluded from
the scope of the Act and this decision became final and
continued to remain effective even after the repeal ot’
Chapter II-A. The right which was acquired under s. 13-I
cannot disappear on the repeal of Chapter Il-A as the estate
in question went completely out of the ambit of the Act. The
intention of the Legislature to include Lord Jagannath’s
estate within the expression "trust estate" in cl. (oo) in
s. 2 by the Amending Act 1974 was clearly to spare the said
estate permanently from the mischief of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: l. There is no infirmity in the notification dated
18.3.1974 issue under. 3-A of the Act.[737El
2. It is manifest from the language of s. 13-l 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 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.
[737A-BI
3. Sections 7-A, X-A, 8-D and 8-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 benefit they receive from a declaration under s.
13-(. is limited and referable only to a vesting
notification issued earlier. [737Dl
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 3177 of
1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24 ’ 81 of the Orissa
High Court in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 233 of 1977.
N K Das and A P Mohanty for the Appellant
G L. Sanghi R K Mehta, Ms. Mona Mehta and J R Das for
the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SHARMA, J. The question which arises in this appeal by
special leave from the decision of the Orissa High Court in
a writ case is whether the "estate" of Lord Jagannath has
PG NO 734
vested in the State of Orissa as a result of the
notification dated 18.3.1974 issued under s. 3-A of the
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) or the said notification is ultra vires and fit
to be quashed.
2. The writ petition in the High Court was filed by a
number of persons claiming to be Sevaks and worshippers of
Lord Jagannath, the presiding deity of the famous Jagannath
temple. The management of the temple and the properties
including the intermediary interest is in the hands of a
trust which was impleaded as a respondent in the case.
Besides, the State of Orissa and Collector, Puri, the
Administrator, Jagannath temple, the Jagannath Committee
were also made parties. They, however, do not support the
writ petitioners and agree with the State that the "estate"
has vested under the impugned notification.
3. The Act was passed in 1952 for the purpose of
abolishing all the rights in land of intermediaries between
the raiyats and the State of Orissa by whatever name known
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
and for vesting the same in the State. Section 3 authorises
the State Government to declare by a notification any estate
specified therein to have passed to and become vested in the
State. The result of such a notification is dealt with in s.
5. In substance the intermediary concerned is divested of
the notified interests and becomes entitled to compensation
to be computed in the manner indicated in the Act. By an
amendment s. 3-A was included in the Act permitting the
State Government to issue a single notification in respect
of a class or classes of intermediaries in the whole or a
part of the State. By a further amendment in 1963 Chapter
II-A was inserted in the Act, making special provisions for
public trusts. Clause (e) of s. 13-A described "trust
estate" as an estate the whole of the net income whereof is
dedicated exclusively to charitable or religious purposes.
Admittedly the estate belonging to Lord Jagannath is
included in the expression "trust estate". Provisions were
made in Chapter II-A for entertaining claims and determining
nature of the estates claimed to be trust estates and
announcing the decision by notification. The effect of such
a determination was, as mentioned in s. 13-I(1) to save the
estate from vesting under a notification issued under s 3 or
3-A.
4. A notification under s. 3 of the Act was issued in
respect to the estate of Lord Jagannath on 27.4.1963 and on
the same date another notification under Chapter II-A
followed declaring the estate as trust estate. Consequently
the deity was not divested of the estate. In 1970 Chapter
PG NO 735
II-A was repealed. In 1974 the Act was further amended and
"trust estate" which was not included in the definition
section of the original Act was defined in clause (oo) in
the following terms (excluding the Explanation which is not
relevant for the present case):
0"(oo) ’trust estate’ means an estate the whole of the
net 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:
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 the
trust estates by a competent authority under this Act prior
to the date of coming into force of the Orissa Estates
Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1970, shall be deemed to be trust
estates.
On 18.3.1974 the impugned notification under s. 3-A, as
quoted below, was issued:
"The 18th March 1974
S.R.O. No. 184/74-In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 3-A of the Orissa Estates
Abolition Act, 195 l (Orissa Act I of 1952), the State
Government do hereby declare that
(i) the intermediary interests of all intermediaries
whose estates have been declared as trust estates under
Chapter Il-A of the said Act;
(ii) those in respect of which claims and references
made under the said chapter were pending on the date of
commencement of the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment Act,
1970 (Orissa Act 33 of 1970); and
(iii) the intermediary interests of all intermediaries
in respect of all estates other than those which have
already vested in the State have passed to and become vested
in the State free from all encumbrances.
PG NO 736
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
(No. 13699-EA-I-ND-1/74-R)
By order of the Governor
S.M. Patnaik
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government."
In this background the writ application was filed in the
High Court challenging the notification. The High Court
rejected the claim of the petitioner and dismissed the writ
application by the impugned judgment.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that as a result of the decision under Chapter II-A
declaring Lord Jagannath’s estate a "trust estate" the same
must be deemed to have been excluded from the scope of the
Act, and this result in the eye of law became final and
cotinued to remain effective even after the repeal of
Chapter II-A Reliance was placed on Section 5 of the Orissa
General Clauses Act and it was argued that the right which
the petitioner acquired under Section 13-1 as a result of
the decision cannot disappear on the repeal of this Chapter
The learned counsel proceeded to urge that as a result of
the said decision the estate in question went completely out
of the ambit of the Act and for this reason when in 1974 the
Act was further amended it was considered necessary to
define "trust estate" in Section 2 of the Act and to
expressly include Lord Jagannath’s estate within the
expression with a view to set at rest any controversy in
this regard. According to the learned counsel the intention
of the legislature is clearly to permanently spare the
petitioner’s estate from the of the Act In our view the
argument has no merit and must be rejected.
6. 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
such a declaration This aspect is dealt within s 13-I, 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)
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 to have vested in the State
in pursuance thereof." (emphasis added)
PG NO 737
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 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 clause (b) of s
13-K which reads as follows:
"(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 benefit they receive from a declaration under s. 13-
G is 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
estate could not be vested in the State by a notification
issued subsequently
7. We accordingly hold that there is no infirmity in the
notification dated 18.3.1974 issued under s. 3-A of the Act
The appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances
without costs.
A.P.J. Appeal dismissed