http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: HINDU PUBLIC & ANOTHER ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJDHANI PUJA SAMITHEE & OTHERS ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/02/1999

BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, & M.B. SHAH.

JUDGMENT:

M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

             These  three  Civil appeals arise out  of  the          same judgment of the High Court and can be disposed          of together.  Civil Appeal No.2546 of 1992 has been          filed   by  the  ‘Hindu   Public’   through   their          representative     Sri       K.C.Malla,    Advocate          Bhubaneshwar,  Orissa.   The   said  Advocate  also          figures  as  the  2nd   appellant.   Civil  Appeals          Nos.2547-48  of  1992 have been filed  by  Rajdhani          Puja Samithee(hereinafter called the ‘Society’), on          behalf  of itself and also representing  appellants          nos.   2  to  4, the Deities Sri  Bhubaneswar,  Sri          Bhubaneswari and Sri Hanuman.

             The following are the facts:

             In  1949,  a  group of persons  started  Durga          Puja,  Laxmi and Kali Puja and related festivals in          Bhubaneshwar  near the Raj Mahal Chhat.  Later,  at          any  rate from 1955, these religious festivals  and          pujas  were  shifted to an open place belonging  to          Government,  opposite  to the Market building.   In          that  year, an informal Committee came into  being.          Donations  were  being received for  the  aforesaid          purposes  from  public as is clear from Exhibit  F.          With  a  view to have a permanent place  for  these          pujas, a group of persons from among the organisers          of these festivals and pujas, formed into the Durga          Puja  Samithee  and registered it as a  Society  on          21.1.1960  under  the Societies  Registration  Act,          1860  (Act  21  of  1860)   with  a  Memorandum  of          Association  which  included   cultural  and  other          activities  also besides religious activities.  The          Society  then  applied to the Government of  Orissa          for  grant  of land for conducting these pujas  and          religious  festivals.  Government of Orissa granted          a  lease  on 17.9.1960 at Rs.1 as rent.   Initially          the  lease  was  for  30 years  but  it  was  later          extended for over a period of 90 years.  In 1977, a          part of the land was acquired for road widening but          another  piece  of equal area was granted  under  a          deed   Exhibit  5  dated   8.11.1977.    In   1965,          construction  of the Durga Mandap took place on the          leasehold  property.  During 1969-1970, shop  rooms          were  constructed and in the same year temples  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

        Hanuman,   Radha   Krishan,    Durga   etc.    were          constructed.  During this period, an appeal (Ext.F)          was  issued to the public to contribute  generously          for  the  deities  and the  temples.   That  appeal          refers to the religious activities right from 1949.          According  to  the appellants, this Appeal  to  the          public clinchingly proves that the entire leasehold          land was intended to be and was used as a religious          endowment.   In 1973, it is said that a Puja Mandap          was constructed.  On 28.5.1974 as per Ex.A, printed          annual  report  for  the years 1973  and  1974  was          approved  at the General Body Meeting.  The members          of  the  Society  were then 67.  According  to  the          ‘Hindu  Public’,  this  Report also  confirmed  the          public   nature   of   the    temples   and   other          constructions on the leased land.

             At  that  stage  disputes  arose  between  the          members    of   the     Society.    The   Assistant          Commissioner,  Hindu  Religious Endowments,  issued          notice  on  27.1.1978  to the Society,  to  produce          records   in  connection  with   the  temple.    On          4.5.1978,  the  Vice President of the  Society  was          asked  to appear before the authority with  records          failing which non hereditary trustees under section          27  of  the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments  Act,          1951  (hereinafter  called  the   ‘Act’)  would  be          appointed.   On  27.5.78, the Society informed  him          that  there  was no deity, either Radha Krishan  or          Durga  installed  in  the   premises.   On  2.6.78,          Deities  of  Sri Bhubaneswar and Bhubaneswari  were          installed  in the constructed temples 1 and 2.   On          2.8.1978,  the Assistant Commissioner issued notice          (Ext.25)  directing  the  Endowments  Inspector  to          inspect the premises and submit a report.

             At  that stage, on 30.9.78, the Governing Body          is  said to have amended the byelaws (as per Ex.2A)          with  the  object  of   preventing  the   Endowment          Department  from interfering with the Society.   On          29.10.78, the Society’s Secretary wrote a letter to          the  Commissioner, HRE denying that the institution          was a religious institution.

             The  Assistant Commissioner passed an order on          12.1.1979  appointing non-hereditary trustees under          section 27 of the Act.  The Society then filed O.A.          No.49/79  under section 41 for stay of the order of          the  order  passed  under section  27.   Thereafter          there  were various orders passed by the Department          and  ultimately  Writ petition No.774 of  1979  was          filed by the Society on 8.9.80.  That writ petition          was  disposed of by staying the order under section          27  and directing disposal of Society’s application          under section 41.

             Thereafter,  the Assistant Commissioner passed          an  elaborate  order  on   6.3.1981  declaring  the          temples  in which the deities were installed, as  a          public  temple.   The Society was declared  as  the          hereditary  trustee.   But so far as the  remaining          part  of  the  leasehold  land  and  the  buildings          thereon  were concerned, it was held that they were          not  part of the endowment.  There were two appeals          FA  No.17/84  and  FA  20 of  1984  to  the  Deputy

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

        Commissioner, one by the Hindu Public and the other          by  the Society.  The Deputy Commissioner, by order          dated  30.12.1989, allowed the appeal of the  Hindu          Public  and  held that the temples as well  as  the          remaining  land  and  buildings were  part  of  the          endowment.   The FA 17/84 was allowed and FA  20/84          was dismissed.

             Against   the  said  order   of   the   Deputy          Comissioner  the  Society filed two appeals  namely          Misc.   Appeals 88 and 89 of 1990.  The High  Court          allowed the appeals in part and in effect, restored          the  orders  of the Assistant Commissioner  stating          that:

             "(i) places where deities Sri Bhubaneswar, Sri          Bhubaneswari  and  Hanuman are installed  and  puja          Mandap are religious institutions being temples;

             (ii)  other  parts of leasehold areas are  not          parts  of the temple and are also not proved to  be          religious endowments;

             (iii)  Major  portion of the income  including          monthly  rent  of  the   shop  rooms  is  religious          endowment  though there is no immovable property of          the religious institution;

             (iv)  What portion of the income and funds  of          the  Samity  are  religious   endowments  would  be          examined afresh by the Assistant Commissioner;  and

             (v)  the  Samity  is  not  wholly  secular  in          character being partly of religious character."

             On these findings, the High Court remanded the          application  under  section  41   for  the  limited          purpose  of determining the portion of the funds of          the  Samithee  which  should go  to  the  religious          endowment.

             It  is  against the above orders of  the  High          Court  that  the  ‘Hindu Public’  has  filed  Civil          Appeal  No.2546 of 1992 while the Society has filed          Civil Appeals Nos.  2547-48 of 1992.

             Learned  counsel  for the appellants in  Civil          Appeal No.2546 of 1992 Sri JanaRanjan Das contended          that  the  entire leasehold property including  the          Mandap,  Library,  shop   rooms  etc.   constituted          endowment  property  and  that the High  Court  was          wrong  in  confining the endowment to  the  temples          alone.  The Society was not secular in character as          contended by the Society.

             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the          Society,  Sri  Vinoo  Bhagat   contended  that  the          Society  was secular in character, that the temples          were  private temples meant for the members of  the          Society, that the rest of the leasehold was, in any          event,  not endowment property, that, in fact,  the          registration  of  the Society under  the  Societies          Registration  Act, 1860 could not be for  religious          purposes.   It was also contended that if a  temple          is  constructed on lease hold land, because of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

        right  of resumption at the end of the term, such a          temple cannot be a public temple.

             On  the above contentions, the following  four          points arise for consideration:

             (1)  Whether a Society can be registered under          the Societies Registration Act (Act 21 of 1860) for          religious  purposes treating such purposes as  part          of  ‘Charitable  purposes’  as   mentioned  in  the          preamble  and  sections 1 and 20 of  the  abovesaid          Act?

             (2)  Whether the puja and religious  festivals          were  being carried on in this very premises  since          1949  and  if so, whether the inclusion of  certain          social  and  cultural  purposes  in  the  aims  and          objects  of  the  Society  at   the  time  of   its          subsequent  registration  in 1960,-  alongwith  the          religious  activities  - was intended to  transform          the  nature of the trust from religious into one of          a secular character?

             (3)  Whether  a temple located  on  lease-hold          land could not be a public temple?

             (4)  Whether  the  High  Court  was  right  in          setting  aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner          in  part  and restricting the public trust only  to          the temples and not to the library, mandap, pandal,          shops  and  other  constructions and  in  virtually          restoring the order of the Assistant Commissioner?

        Point 1:

             Learned  counsel for the Society contended  in          the  Society’s  Appeals  that no Society  could  be          registered  under  the Societies Registration  Act,          1860 for ‘religious purposes’ either in whole or in          part,  inasmuch  as the said purposes would not  be          ‘charitable  purposes’ falling within the  preamble          to  the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of          1860) and sections 1 and 20 of the said Act.

             The  Preamble  to  the   above  Act  reads  as          follows:

             "Whereas it is expedient that provision should          be  made  for  improving  the  legal  condition  of          societies   established   for   the  promotion   of          literature,  science, or the fine arts, or for  the          diffusion  of  useful knowledge, the  diffusion  of          political education, or for charitable purposes, it          is enacted as follows- -"

             Again,  Section 1 of the Act 21/1860 reads  as          follows:

             "S.1--Societies   formed  by   memorandum   of          association  and  registration-- Any seven or  more          persons associated for any literary, scientific, or          charitable  purpose, or for any such purpose as  is          described  in  section  20  of this  Act,  may,  by          subscribing   their  names  to   a  memorandum   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

        association, and filing the same with the Registrar          of  Joint-stock  Companies, form themselves into  a          society under this Act."

        Section 20 of the said Act reads as follows:

             "S.20-To what societies Act  applies--The               following  societies  may  be  registered               under this Act:--

             Charitable  societies,  the   military  orphan          funds  or  societies  established  at  the  several          presdencies of India, societies established for the          promotion  of science, literature, or the find arts          for instruction, the diffusion of useful knowledge,          the   diffusion   of   political   education,   the          foundation   or   maintenance   of   libraries   or          reading-rooms  for general use among the members or          open  to the public or public museums and galleries          of paintings and other works of art, collections of          natural   history,  mechanical   and   philosphical          inventions, instruments, or designs."

             According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the          Society,  the  words ‘charitable purposes’ used  in          the  Preamble and sections 1 and 20 of Act  21/1860          do not include ‘religious purposes’.

             In  our  opinion, this contention is not  well          founded.   More  than  ninety  years  ago,  such  a          contention   raised  under  Act  21  of  1860   was          negatived  by  the Allahabad High Court in  Anjuman          Islamia  of  Muttra vs.  Nasiruddin [(1906) ILR  28          All.  384].  It was contended in that case that the          registration  of a society called ‘Anjuman Islamia’          under  Act  21 of 1860 was not permissible  as  the          society  was  formed for ‘religious purposes  only’          and  not  for charitable purposes.   The  Allahabad          High  Court  rejected the said contention and  held          that  a  society  for   religious  purposes   would          ordinarily be a society for charitable purposes.  A          similar question arose before the Madras High Court          in  Khaji  Muhammed  Hussain  Sahib  vs.   Masjiday          Mehmood  Jamait  Managing committee, Puddupet  [AIR          1940  Madras 167].  A Division Bench consisting  of          Wadsworth and Venkataramana Rao, JJ.  held that the          Act  21/1860 was passed in 1860 when, according  to          English law, a gift for the advancement of religion          or  promotion of religious worship was treated as a          charitable purpose and, therefore, a society formed          for  such  a purpose would be a charitable  society          under  Act 21/1860.  The only condition was that it          should be for the benefit of the public.  No doubt,          in  some  statutes enacted subsequent to Act 21  of          1860,  the legislature used the words  ‘charitable’          and  ‘religious’ but the definition of these  words          was  expressly  stated  to be for the  purposes  of          those Acts.  The subsequent legislation, the Madras          High   Court   held,  would   not  be  helpful   in          interpreting  the  words ‘charitable’ in Act 21  of          1860.   The real question was:  "What did the  term          mean  in 1860"?  We are in agreement with the  view          of  the Allahabad and Madras High Courts.  In fact,          Lord  McNaughten  in  his  celebrated  judgment  in          Commissioner of Income Tax vs.  Pemsel [1891 AC 531

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

        (581)]  said  that charitable purposes  which  came          within  the  language and spirit of the statute  of          Elizabeth (43 Eliz ch 4) could be grouped into four          heads  (i) relief of poverty, (ii) education, (iii)          advancement  of  religion and (iv)  other  purposes          beneficial to the community not coming under any of          the preceding heads.  The words in Act 21/1860 are,          therefore,  to be understood as including religious          purposes  also.   Point  No.1 is held  against  the          society.

        Points 2 & 3:

             In the present case, the facts as found by the          Deputy Commissioner and as may be gathered from the          record  are  that there were  religious  activities          relating  to  Durga Puja etc.  and festivals  right          from  1949.  Initially they were being conducted by          the  members  of the public of Bhubaneswar  at  Raj          Mahal  Chhat.  Later on, at any rate from the  year          1955,  a  committee was formed and these Pujas  and          festivals  were being performed on government  land          lying  opposite to the Market building.   Donations          were  being collected from the public, as is  clear          from  Ext.   F, for the purpose of the  said  pujas          right  from  1949.   Thereafter, in 1959  a  public          meeting  was  held  and  it was  decided  that  the          Government  of  Orissa  should  be  approached  for          assignment   of  the  very   land  in  which  these          functions  and festivals were being conducted.  For          that purpose, it was decided to register a Society.          Accordingly  the Society in question was registered          on 21.1.1960 and the Government was moved for lease          of  this very land for religious purposes.  A lease          was  granted  on  17.9.1960  for  30  years  (later          amended  as for 90 years).  A part of the land  was          acquired for a road and an equal extent was granted          by   deed   dated   8.11.1977.   Thereafter   these          functions  were regularly going on year after  year          in the leasehold land.  Subsequently donations were          received.    In   1965,  the   Durga   Mandap   was          constructed.    During  1969-70   shop  rooms  were          constructed.   In  1971,  the  Hanuman  temple  was          constructed.   Later temples of RadhaKrishan, Durga          etc.   were constructed.  Then in 1973, Puja Mandap          was  constructed.   The evidence on record is  that          they  were  constructed from public  donations  and          subscriptions.   No  evidence was adduced that  the          members alone personally contributed.

             Even  so,  learned  counsel  for  the  Society          submitted  that the temples were not public temples          inasmuch  as  there  was no restriction  that  only          Hindus  would be eligible to become members of  the          Society.   Further, it was contended that the  aims          and  objects  of the Society were both secular  and          religious  in  character.  The aims and objects  of          the Society read as follows:

             "(a)   The   Samittee  shall,    as   far   as          practicable,  provide  common place for meeting  of          the  members  of  the  Samittee,  for  purposes  of          recreation,  discussion  of literary, cultural  and          common   problems,    encouragement    of   thrift,          advancement  of social welfare ideas and protection

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

        of the interests of its members.

             (b) celebrate social festivals like Durga Puja          etc.,  advance  other objects,  provide  facilities          like Mandap, Temple, Parks, Educational, Mental and          Physical    Institutions,     Library,   Charitable          dispensary,  rest  rooms and comercial centres  for          the interest of the members"

             Learned counsel for the Society contended that          even  though  para  (b)  of the  aims  and  objects          referred  to Durga Puja etc., still para (a)  dealt          with  several  secular activities and further,  the          concluding  words  in  para (b), namely,  ‘for  the          interest  of the members’ meant that the Durga Puja          etc.  were restricted to members only.

             In  our view, the fact that the membership  of          the  Society  was not restricted to any  particular          religious    community    makes    no   difference.          Membership  is one thing and nature of the property          which  the  Society manages is another  thing.   In          fact,  as  pointed out by the Deputy  Commissioner,          members  professing  Islam  and  Christianity  were          never  inducted from 1960 to 1980.  It was only  in          1980,  long after the disputes started and  notices          were  issued by the Department, that a few  members          were  inducted from other communities.  Even  those          professing  Islam were not allowed into the  temple          part  of  the endowment.  It is true that the  last          part of clause (b) of the aims and objects uses the          words  ‘and  commercial centres for the use of  the          members’.   It is not clear whether the words  ‘for          the  use  of  members’  qualifies  only  the  words          ‘commercial  centres’.  In fact, we cannot think of          a charitable dispensary confined only to members of          the  Society.  In the light of the above  material,          it  cannot  be said that the Durga puja etc.   were          pujas intended only for members.

             We  shall  approach the question from  another          angle.   It  has been found that right  from  1949,          these  festivals were being conducted by the  Hindu          Community  and  at any rate from 1955 at this  very          place.   Public  donations and  subscriptions  were          being  collected.   Then  lease for this  land  was          applied.   Lease  was granted.  If that be so,  can          some  of  the members of the public  registering  a          Society  claim that the festivals were for  members          of  the Society only or that the society wanted  to          use  the  land  mainly  for  secular  purposes  and          incidentally  for these pujas and festivals, merely          by addition of para (a) in the aims and objects, in          addition to these pujas in para (b).

             It is in the evidence of witnesses examined on          behalf  of the ‘Hindu Public’ before the  Assistant          Commissioner  that para (a) of the aims and objects          was  introduced alongwith para (b) so as to  ensure          that  the  request for grant of lease of this  very          land  was not rejected by Government on the  ground          that  land  could  not be  leased  exclusively  for          religious  purposes.  On this aspect, the Assistant          Commissioner   rejected   the   oral  evidence   as          inadmissible  as it contradicts the recitals in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

        deed  of  registration  of the Society in  view  of          sections  91  and 92 of the Evidence Act.   In  our          view,  this  is not correct in law.  Oral  evidence          could  be  adduced to show that the recitals  in  a          deed  were nominal or were not intended to be acted          upon  or  that  they were not meant  to  alter  the          existing  state  of affairs.  Oral  evidence  could          therefore be issued to show that the Society’s main          concern  was  the  celebration of  the  Durga  puja          festivals  etc.   and  that other  activities  were          subsidiary.  Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was          right in relying on this part of the oral evidence.

             Eleven years after the Society was formed, the          appeal  Ex.F was issued for donations.  It  reveals          that  the  main  purpose  of the  Society  was  the          construction  of  temples and celebration of  these          festivals.  It states:

             "Although  for last so many days, Sri Sri  Sri          Durga  Puja is being performed here, yet no special          effort   has  been  made   for  construction  of  a          permanent  mandap  and temples for other  gods  and          Goddesses.    Although  major   population  in  the          capital  is  Hindu,  yet it is regrettable  that  a          permanent  mandap  and  temples of other  Gods  and          Goddesses  have not yet been established here.   On          the  other hand, minority communities like Muslims,          christians  and  Sikhs   have  already  constructed          beautiful  permanent Mosque, Church and  Gurudwara.          But it has not yet been possible for we Hindus.  It          is most regrettable."

             In addition, we have the Report of the General          Secretary  of the year 1973 which refers to various          activities  of  the Society.  Except the  religious          activities,  there  is  no reference to  any  other          activities.  The report refers to puja expenditure,          construction  of temples for Goddesses, for Mahadev          Temple, construction of Mandap, Kitchen, Court yard          and  guest  house etc.  It states that  almost  all          religious  functions  like Durga puja,  Kali  Puja,          Laxmi   Puja,   Kartikeswar   Puja,  Rama   Navami,          Astaprahari,  Ganesh  Puja, Dolo and Jhulana  Jatra          were  being  performed.  There is also evidence  of          collection  of subscription through a receipt  book          from  members  of  the  public  for  the  aforesaid          religious  purposes  and  festivals  of  the  Hindu          community.

             As  pointed by the Deputy Commissioner, though          the Hanuman temple was installed in 1971 and public          functions  were being performed throughout, a board          was  put  up  for  the  first time  in  1976  by  a          resolution dated 26.9.76, that the temple was meant          ‘for  members  only’.  This was done after  dispute          stated  among the members.  It is, however, in  the          evidence  of one of the witnesses who was a  Muslim          (Ext.A.P.W.5)  and was engaged for some  decoration          that after the decoration, he as well as other non-          Hindus,  were not allowed to enter the premises  of          the deity.  The Deputy Commissioner held:

             "This  explodes  the theory propounded by  the          petitioners  that  functions like Durga Puja,  Kali

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

        Puja,  and Laxmi Puja etc.  are secular and  social          functions."

             So  far  as the resolutions  allowing  certain          other  communities  to  use  the  mandap  or  other          buildings  for performance of their functions,  the          Deputy Commissioner held that from the evidence, it          was  clear  that the documents evidencing the  said          resolutions  were subsequently fabricated and  were          antedated.   He  further pointed out that  for  the          first  time people professing Islam or  Christanity          were inducted as members during 1980 long after the          notices  were issued by the Assistant Commissioner.          He also held that the Samithi ‘drasticalloy amended          the  provisions  of  the  Samithi’s  constitution’,          during  the pendency of the case, in an attempt  to          take   away   the  religious   character   of   the          institution.  The amendments were made with oblique          motives.

             On the basis of the aforesaid facts both prior          to  1960  and  after 1960, and conclusions  of  the          Deputy  Commissioner  it  must  be  held  that  the          predominant purpose in the formation of the society          and grant of lease was for religious purposes.  The          other  purposes were not the dominant purposes  and          the addition of the aims and activities in para (a)          was  not  intended  to change the  basic  religious          character of the trust.

             From  the above material, it is clear that the          temples  established  were  intended to  be  public          temples   in  which  every   member  of  the  Hindu          community  was  entitled to enter as of  right  and          entry  was  not  restricted to the members  of  the          Society.  Point 2 is held against the Society.

        Point 3:

             It  was argued for the Society, that a  temple          in  order to be a public temple must be constructed          in  land  of which the founders were owners and  in          case  the land was leasehold land, it must be  held          that  it  was not intended to be a  public  temple.          According  to  him there cannot be a  public  trust          whose  life  will be coterminus with the expiry  of          the term of a leasehold land.

             On facts, we do not find any substance in this          contention.   It  is  an  admitted  fact  that  the          Government  granted a lease of land for 90 years in          1960.   Assuming that the preposition contended for          is  correct,  we  are  of the view  that  the  said          proposition cannot apply to land leased for as long          a period as 90 years.  The point is rejected.

        Point 4:

             It was contended for the ‘Hindu Public’ by its          learned  counsel  that  the   High  Court  and  the          Assistant  Commissioner were wrong in thinking that          the  public  endowment  was confined  only  to  the          temples  and  did  not extend to  the  mandap,  the          library, shop-rooms and other constructions.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

             Apart  from  the  evidence to  which  we  have          already  referred the contents in the public appeal          of  1971 for donations, Ex.F, proves that not  only          the  temples  but the mandap, the shop  rooms,  the          library  and  other constructions were part of  the          religious endowment.  It states that the Government          granted  lease of one and half acres at the central          place  of the new capital in front of the market to          the  Society  for construction of Durga Mandap  and          other  constructions, 11 years before this  appeal.          From  1949,  every  year,  on  this  place,  public          worship  of  Sri Durga, Laxmi and Kali  were  being          performed.   Worship  of Deity Kartikeswar  started          two  years before.  Sri Ram Navami, Pana Sankranti,          Ekadashi,  Sibaratri, Bhagabat Janma, Ganesh  Puja,          Saraswati  Puja  etc.  were to be  performed.   Two          years  before, Hanuman temple had been established.          The appeal says that "although for the last so many          days,  Sri  Sri Sri Durga Puja is  being  performed          here,  yet  no  special effort has  been  made  for          construction  of a permanent mandap and temples for          other  Gods  and Goddesses".  This shows  that  the          Mandap  was for Durga Puja and not, as contended by          the  learned counsel for the Society, to be used by          all  other  communities for various functions  like          marriages  etc.  The Appeal further states that all          other   communities,  Mohammendan   and   Christian          communities  were  having  their own  buildings  in          Bhubaneswar.  So far as the other constructions are          concerned, the Appeal states:

             "Constructions   have  started   here  for   a          permanent  Devi Mandap, compound, 6 permanent  shop          room  and  a  garden.  For this  purpose,  a  small          amount  of  donation  has   been  received.   About          Rs.40,000/-  has been received towards advance rent          from  prospective  tenants.    Besides  this,  some          amount  is  collected  from  tenants  of  temporary          shops.   There  is  proposal  for  construction  of          temples  for deities, Radhakrishna, Sita Rama, Siva          and  Devi.  Minimum estimated cost for each  temple          has been fixed at Rs.8,000/-.

             There  is no library of religious books.  Many          distinguished  Sadhus,  Sanyasis and  devotees  are          coming  here.   As there is no suitable  place  for          them  to  stay, they are staying in  family  houses          contrary   to   Sastras  and   in   Dharmasala   at          Bhubaneswar.   So a small Dharmasala and a  library          of religious books are essential for them......

             .........there  is no permanent public  pandal          for   religious   meetings    ....Those   religious          institutions  who need an office here, the same can          be constructed for them at their expenses."

             On  that  basis, public donations were  called          for.   The  above appeal, in our view,  clinchingly          establishes that the mandap, shops, garden, library          and  Dharmsala or guest house and office rooms etc.          were  all meant for religious purposes of the Hindu          community.   There is not a whisper in this  appeal          of  any secular purposes or purposes of other  than          religious.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

             In our view, the Deputy Commissioner was right          in  holding  that the leasehold land, the  temples,          the  mandap,  the  library,   the  guest  house  or          Dharmsala,  the  office  and shops,  all  of  them,          formed the endowment.  The Deputy Commissioner was,          right  in  rejecting  all the  contentions  of  the          Society  and in appointing non-hereditary  trustees          under section 27 of the Endowment Act.

             For   the  aforesaid   reasons,  Civil  Appeal          No.2546  of  1992 is allowed and the Civil  Appeals          Nos.   2547-48 of 1992 are dismissed.  The order of          the Deputy Commissioner is restored.  There will be          no order as to costs in all the appeals.