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 In 1970 Chapter Il-A was repealed.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