2015 (12) TMI 1848 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of subsequent settlement made in favour of the Temple Managing Committee - the disputed land was earlier settled in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Puri, Marfat Siddha Brundaban Ramanuj Das. Whether the suit lands can vest in the Respondent Math in the light of the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955? - HELD THAT - In the instant case, there is a clear conflict between the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 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 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. In the case in hand, the first part of the proviso of Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 cannot be allowed to sustain. Clearly, 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 the instant case. Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951, thus, to that extent requires to be struck down so that both the OEA Act, 1951 as well as the Temple Act, 1955 can be given due effect in their respective field of operation. In 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. In the instant case, great injustice will be caused to the Appellant Temple if the rights conferred upon it by the Temple Act are allowed to be taken away by operation of the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act. Therefore, we have to strike down the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act and also quash the notification dated 18.03.1974 in so far as it relates to the property of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri - Further, it is a settled principle of law that 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, we were to accept the contentions advanced by the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Math, then Sections 5 and 33 of the Temple Act, 1955 will be rendered useless and nugatory and thereby the laudable object and intendment of the Temple Act will be defeated and the interest of the public at large will be affected. Whether even otherwise, the Math had the right to prefer claim rights in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate the proceedings under the OEA Act, 1951 by virtue of being an intermediary? - HELD THAT - Since the Tahsildar performs only an administrative function under the OEA Act, 1951 and not a quasi judicial function, thus, he was not competent to pass the order of settlement of claim either Under Section 6 or 7 or 8 of the OEA Act, 1951. For the reasons stated in answer to Point No. 1 above, vesting of the suit lands in favour of the Math is bad in law. Further, as we have already held supra that 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 to the Appellant Temple Committee, the same could not have 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 OEA Act, 1951, as the operation of the said Act and the Temple Act, 1955 are in different fields and the objects and intendment of the abovementioned two Acts are entirely different. A constitution bench of this Court in the case of Calcutta Gas Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal 1962 (2) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT held that in case of a conflict or overlap between different entries, the rule of harmonious construction must be applied to give effect to all the entries. Thus, there was no need for the Temple Committee to file claim proceedings Under Section 8A of the OEA Act, 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 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. Since we have categorically recorded the finding both on facts and in law while answering Point No. 1 in favour of the Appellant Temple Committee holding that the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951 have no application to the lands of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri, there is no need for us to pass an order in favour of the Temple under the OEA Act, 1951 as the suit lands were already vested in favour of the Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri by virtue of the provisions of the Temple Act, 1955. Application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the suit lands can vest in the Respondent Math in light of the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955?
2. Whether the Math had the right to prefer claim rights in respect of the Temple Lands and initiate proceedings under the OEA Act, 1951 by virtue of being an intermediary?
3. What order?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Vesting of Suit Lands in Respondent Math

The court examined the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, and the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951. The Temple Act, 1955, provides for the administration and governance of Shri Jagannath Temple at Puri and its endowments, vesting all properties in the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee. The OEA Act, 1951, aimed to abolish intermediary interests and vest them in the State. The court noted that the Temple Act, 1955, being a special law, overrides the general provisions of the OEA Act, 1951. The court held that the decision in Lord Jagannath's case, which upheld the notification vesting the estate in the State, was per incuriam for not considering the Temple Act, 1955. The Temple Act's provisions, which vest the temple's properties in the managing committee, take precedence over the OEA Act. Thus, the vesting of the suit lands in the State by the 1974 notification was invalid.

Issue 2: Right of Math to Claim Lands Under OEA Act, 1951

The court examined whether the Respondent Math had the right to file a claim under Sections 6 and 7 of the OEA Act, 1951. The court found that the Math's claim lacked proper documentation and was not filed before the competent authority, i.e., the Collector. The Tahsildar, who passed the order in favor of the Math, only had administrative powers and not quasi-judicial authority under the OEA Act. Thus, the Math's claim was invalid. Furthermore, the court reiterated that the Temple Act, 1955, vested the lands in the Temple Committee, and the OEA Act could not divest this statutory vesting.

Issue 3: Order

The court set aside the High Court's judgment and the notification dated 18.03.1974, which vested the estate of Lord Jagannath in the State. It struck down the first part of the proviso to Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951, which pertained to the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple at Puri. The court clarified that this judgment would not affect previously settled claims under the OEA Act, 1951, concerning the temple's lands. Consequently, the appeals by the Temple Committee were allowed, and those by the Respondent Math were dismissed.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, take precedence over the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951, concerning the properties of Lord Jagannath Temple. The vesting of the temple's lands in the State by the 1974 notification was invalid, and the lands remained vested in the Temple Committee. The Math's claim under the OEA Act was also invalid. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and quashed the relevant notification and provisions of the OEA Act to the extent they applied to the temple's lands.