Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6122 OF 2008

STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.                      Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

ABANI BALLAV DEY & ORS.                     Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J. 1. The application for intervention is dismissed.    2. Appellant No. 1 - State of Orissa is aggrieved by the  impugned  order  dated  14.05.2008  passed  by  the High Court of Orissa in RSA No. 10 of 2002 and Misc. Case No. 65 of 2008.   

3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we shall extract the short impugned order as under :-

"The  appellants and respondent no. 2 have  filed  a  petition  under  Order  23

Rule  3  of  the  CPC  for  compromise

stating therein that to cut short the

long  term  litigation  and  for  the

benefit  and  improvement  of  the

respondent no. 2 Religious Trust they

Page 2

2

want  to  compound  the  matter.

Previously the parties had filed Misc.

Case  No.  189  of  2006  for  recording

compromise  in  the  appeal.   But  the

Tahasildar, Cuttack raised objection on

the  plea  that  the  property  under

litigation  has  high  market  value  and

the  amount  contemplated  in  compromise

is very low.  Objection was also raised

by the Commissioner of Endowments that

in  absence  of  the  permission  of  the

Commissioner  u/s  19  of  the  OHRE  Act,

the  compromise  cannot  be  effected  as

the  compromise  will  create  stitiban

tenancy  in  favour  of  the  appellants.

The  prayer  for  compromise  was

accordingly,  disallowed  for  want  of

permission  of  the  Commissioner  of

endowments u/s 19 of the OHRE Act.  The

parties,  therefore,  filed  the  present

petition  for  compromise  indicating

inter  alia  that  permission  of  the

Commissioner  of  endowments  has  been

obtained  for  the  compromise  and  the

amount to be paid by the appellants has

been  raised  to  Rupees  thirty  lakhs.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the

Page 3

3

Commissioner  of  Endowments  wherein  it

is stated that Deputy Commissioner of

endowments by successive letters dated

5.2.2008  and  31.3.2008  intimated  the

respondent No.2 that no permission can

be  accorded  for  compromise  in  the

greater  interest  of  the  institution.

It  is  also  indicated  in  the  counter

affidavit  that  present  petition  for

compromise  is  not  maintainable  after

the  order  of  rejection  in  Misc.  Case

No.  189  of  2006.   Reply  to  this

affidavit  of  the  Commissioner  of

Endowments  has  been  filed  by  the

respondent no. 2 to the effect that the

letters of the Deputy Commissioner of

Endowments under Annexures A & B are to

be  ignored  as  the  Commissioner  of

Endowments  in  Memo  No.  10864  dated

5.9.2007  granted  permission  to

respondent no. 2 to effect compromise

in the second appeal.

In  this  regard,  the  appellants

and respondent no. 2 rely on the order

dated 28.4.1989 of the Commissioner of

Page 4

4

Endowments, Orissa passed in OA No. 171

of 1988-II under Section 19 of the Act,

Order  No.  7  dated  11.12.2006  of  the

Commissioner  of  Endowments  in  misc.

Case No. 17 of 2005 and Memo No. 10864

dated  5.9.2007  of  the  office  of  the

Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa.  On

the other hand, learned counsel for the

Commissioner of Endowments rely on Memo

No. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated

31.3.2008  issued  by  the  Deputy

Commissioner  of  Endowments  to

respondent no. 2.  In the order in A.

No.  171of  1988  on  the  prayer  of  the

respondent no. 2, the Commissioner of

Endowments accorded permission for sale

of  the  lands  of  the  religious

institution fixing minimum rate at Rs.

20,000/- per gunth for lands adjoining

road and at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-

per gunth for other lands.  In order

dated 11.12.2006 of Misc. Case No. 17

of 2005 it is reflected that permission

was  sought  for  the  compromise,  but

because  it  was  submitted  that  the

matter does not come within the purview

of  section  19  of  the  OHRE  Act,  the

Page 5

5

misc. case was dropped and the matter

was left to be dealt with in management

side.   In  memo  No.  10864  respondent

no.2  was  permitted  to  enter  into

compromise in the second appeal, if he

so wants.  But thereafter, in Memo nos.

1589  dated  5.2.2008  and  4369  dated

13.3.2008  respondent  no.  2  was

intimated by the Deputy Commissioner of

Endowments that he cannot be permitted

to  enter  into  a  compromise  in  the

greater  interest  of  the  institution.

All these documents show that initially

the  Commissioner  of  Endowments  had

permitted for sale of the lands of the

institution  for  rupees  seven  lakhs

approximately, but litigation crept in

and  no  such  sale  could  be  effected.

Now,  by  way  of  compromise  respondent

no.  2  is  willing  to  create  stitiban

tenancy in favour of the appellants in

respect of the same lands of religious

institution  in  exchange  for  a  sum  of

Rs.  30,00,000/-  to  be  paid  by  the

appellants  to  the  religious

institution.   The  Commissioner  of

Endowments  has  also  passed  order  and

Page 6

6

intimated the order to respondent no.2

that  he  can  enter  into  a  compromise.

The  previous  orders  passed  under

section 19 of the Act and the present

order  permitting  respondent  no.2  to

enter  into  compromise  passed  by  the

Commissioner of Endowments in substance

amounts to accord of permission under

section 19 of the OHRE Act.  Dr. Rath,

learned  counsel  appearing  for

Commissioner  of  Endowments,  however,

states  that  because  the  money  aid  by

the appellants will go for the benefit

of  religious  institution,  the  parties

may  do  well  to  raise  the  amount

considering  the  fact  that  the  suit

lands  are  now  urban  valuable  lands.

After  this  submission  of  Dr.  Rath,

there  was  a  discussion  in  open  court

and learned counsel for the appellants

on  instruction  submitted  that  instead

of rupees thirty lakhs, the appellants

would pay rupees forty five lakhs and

that may be incorporated in the terms

of compromise.  A memo was also filed

in this regard.

Page 7

7

Since the parties are willing to enter

into compromise and end the litigation

and the Commissioner of Endowments has

permitted the respondent no. 1 to enter

into  such  compromise  and  since  the

amount  offered  by  the  appellants  is

more  than  six  and  half  times  of  the

amount  initially  set  by  the

Commissioner of Endowments, the prayer

for  compromise  is  allowed  and  the

appeal  is  disposed  of  on  compromise

according  to  the  terms  of  the

compromise.   The  compromise  petition

along  with  memo  enhancing  the

compromise  amount  from  rupees  thirty

lakhs to rupees forty five lakhs will

form part of the decree.

The  appeal  and  misc.  case  are  thus

disposed of."

4. It is the main contention of the State that the property of the Deity could not have been disposed of by way of a compromise as referred to in the impugned order.   After  having  heard  Mr.  P.  S.  Patwalia, learned senior counsel appearing for the State and

Page 8

8

also  the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  on 14.01.2016, this Court passed the following order :-

"Having heard the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for  the  appellants  and  also

learned  Senior  Counsel  for the

respondents, we are of the view that it

would  be  in the  interest  of  all  the

parties,  that  the  matter  is considered

afresh by the Commissioner of Endowments

in exercise of power under Section 19 of

the  Orissa  Hindu Religious  Endowments

Act, 1951.

 We Permit the Respondent No.3 herein

to make a fresh application before the

Commissioner within two weeks from today

and the Commissioner, after hearing the

appellant  Nos.  1  and  2  as  well  as

respondents, consider the application on

merits and pass appropriate order within

a period of one month thereafter.  

We  make  it  clear  that  the  orders

already  passed  by the  Commissioner  of

Endowments in the matter, shall not stand

in  the  way  of  the  Commissioner

considering the matter afresh and passing

appropriate orders.  

However, we make it clear that this

Page 9

9

order is passed without prejudice to the

contentions raised by parties before this

Court.  

Post after six weeks."

5. The learned counsel appearing for the State today has made available the order of the Commissioner of Endowments,  Orissa,  Bhubaneswar  dated  24.02.2016. According  to  the  Endowment  Commissioner  also, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have long been in possession of the property.  The Deity and the Math are in a neglected  position  and  for  want  of  funds,  no improvements could be made.  The Deity is badly in need of money and having regard to the background of litigation, the property needs to be, in any case, disposed  of.   We  shall  extract  the  relevant consideration of the Endowment Commissioner :-

"7..........The case land is located in urban area in one patch.  The case land is  situated  by  the  side  of  main  road which runs from Biju Pattnaik Chhak to Deula Sahi of Cuttack Town.  Plot No. 321 has been recorded as Jalasaya kisam, but major part of that plot is filled with sand and earth.  Permission for sale of the  case  land  was  accorded  in  O.A.No. 171/1988 vide order dated 28.02.1989, but

Page 10

10

the  same  could  not  be  sold  within  the stipulated  period  of  one  year  due  to several  litigations.   The  case deity/institution  is  not  getting  any income from the case land due to number of litigations.  In case of sale of the case  land,  the  deity  will  get  a considerable  amount  by  way  of  interest from long term fixed deposit of the sale proceeds.  The report of the concerned Inspector of Endowments as well as the Bench  mark  valuation  of  the  case  land obtained from the District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack indicate that the cost of plot no.  317  of  kisam  Gharabari  is  Rs.  4 crores  forty  lakhs  (Rupees  four  crores forty lakhs) per acre.  The cost of plot No. 318 of kisam Bagayat is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs (Rupees two crores seventy five lakhs) per acre.  The cost of plot No. 320 of kisam Gharabari is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs  (Rupees  two  crores  seventy  five lakhs) per acre.  The cost of plot No. 321 of kisam Jalasaya is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs  (Rupees  two  crores  seventy  five lakhs) per acre.  

Page 11

11

8. Thus,  I  found  that  the  case  land belongs to the deity Sri Sri Raghunath Jew,  bije  Matha  Sahi,  Tulasipur  of Cuttack Town under Bidanasi P. S. marfat Mahant Bijoy Narayan Ramanuja Das which has  been  reflected  in  the  R.O.R.  vide Ext.  1  produced  by  the  petitioners. Admittedly,  the  deity/institution  is public  in  nature.   So,  necessary permission/sanction order U/S. 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 is required to sell the case land of the deity for any legal necessity.  The report of the concerned Inspector of Endowments and the R.O.R. of the  case  land  and  the  management  file available  in  the  Endowment  Office indicate  that  Mahant  Bijoy  Narayan Ramanuja Das is the Hereditary Trustee of the deity/institution and as such he has filed  the  case  U/s  19  of  the  O.H.R.E. Act,  1951  before  the  Court  of  the Commissioner  of  Endowments,  Odisha, Bhubaneswar in order to sell the landed properties  of  the  deity/institution  for legal necessity, which is beneficial for the deity/institution.  

Page 12

12

9. As  regards  the  legal  necessity,  I found that the petitioner Math is an old institution.  During my tour I have seen the deity/institution as well as the case land  located  at  Tulasipur  of  Cuttack Town.   The  Temple  and  the  surrounding pucca houses of the institution are now standing  in  dilapidated  condition  which require  major  repair/renovation  and  for that  purpose  huge  amount  of  money  is required.  The deity/institution has no funds to meet the above expenses.  The only way is open to the deity/institution to  sell  some  landed  properties.   The deity/institution  has  some  cultivable lands which are now under the possession of  the  the  institution.   But  the  case land is now under the possession of the O.Ps since long and the institution is not getting anything from the case land. It will be very expensive on the part of the institution to evict the O.Ps from the  case  land  through  litigations. Therefore,  in  my  opinion  it  will  be beneficial  for  the  deity/institution  to sell the case land in order to meet the above  legal  necessity  of  the

Page 13

13

deity/institution.  The O.Ps No. 1 and 2 are  now  staying  over  in  the  case  land with  their  family  members  after constructing  their  house  over  it.  The O.Ps  are  now  ready  and  willing  to purchase the case land at the reasonable rate fixed by this Court.  If the case lands are sold away and the sale proceeds deposited in any Nationalised Bank under Long  Term  Fixed  deposit  scheme,  the deity/institution  will  definitely  get substantial  income  annually  in  safe  of interest.   Hence,  I  feel  that  it  is necessary to sell away the case land for the  above  legal  necessity  which  is beneficial for the deity/institution.   

6. It is seen from the order at Paragraph 5 that prior  to  the  consideration  of  the  matter,  the Endowment Commissioner had given a public notice and that,  "In  spite  of  publication  of  notice,  no objection has been received from any corner."  

7. The Endowment Commissioner having taken note of the fact that the circle rate available could be less than the actual market price, passed the order for auctioning  the  property  with  upset  price  at  Rs.  5

Page 14

14

crores per acre for the first item, Rs. 4 crores per acre for the second item and Rs. 3 crores per acre for the third item.   

8. It is seen from the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner  that  even  if  the  property  is  put  to auction,  it  is  likely  to  ensue  a  long  drawn litigation in the matter of eviction of the present occupants.   

9. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, on instruction and after referring to the records, submits that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been in occupation of the property since 1956.   

10. The offer originally made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the High Court was for Rs. 30 Lakhs, which was enhanced to Rs. 45 Lakhs and it was on Rs.45 Lakhs, the compromise was entered into and the appeal  was  disposed  of  by  the  High  Court  by  the impugned Judgment in 2008.   

11. When the appeal was pending before this Court, by way of an application filed in July, 2015, Respondent Nos.  1  and  2  offered  an  amount  of  Rs.80  Lakhs, whereas  the  intervenor  had  offered  an  amount  of Rs.1.68 crores.

Page 15

15

12. Having  regard  to  the  background  of  the litigation, having regard to the dire necessity for the Deity to dispose of the property, having regard to the fact that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been in occupation of the property since 1956 and that they have constructed their houses in the property, we are of  the  view  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  all concerned to put a quietus to the litigations between the State and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the sale of the  property  under  Section  19  of  the  Orissa  Hindu Religious Endowment Act.   

13. After considering the suggestions made from all quarters and having regard to the offers made before this  Court,  having  regard  to  the  circle  rate  and market  rate  and  having  regard  to  more  than  five decades of the admitted occupancy by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we fix the rate at Rs. 2.75 crores for the entire property now occupied by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

14. This  amount  shall  be  deposited  by  Respondent Nos.1  and  2  within  a  period  of  three  months  from today.  On such deposit, whatever rights available to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of property under

Page 16

16

Section 19 of the Act shall be transferred to them.   

15. In view of the above observations and directions, this civil appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.  

16. We make it clear that this Judgment is passed in the peculiar background of the case we have extracted above  and  the  same  shall  not  be  treated  as  a precedent.            

.......................J.               [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]  New Delhi; March 02, 2016.