JUDGEMENT
D.P. Choudhury, J. -
(1.)Challenge has been made to the order dated 2.6.1992 passed by the learned O.E.A. Collector, Nimapara in OEA Case No.307 of 1989.
FACTS
(2.)The adumbrated facts of the petitioner is that the case land is recorded as Debottar Lakhraj Bahel estate in the name of Lord Shri Jagannath Bije, Puri, through the Marfatdar of Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Das, Bada Akhada Math, Puri. The Collector, Puri and Mahanta Shri Ram Prakash Dash filed Misc. Case No.543 of 1963 and Misc. Case No.1369 of 1965 under Section 13 (D) of the unamended provision of Chapter-11-A of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter called as "OEA Act") before the Tribunal for declaration that the suit property is trust estate. On the basis of the application, the Tribunal allowed the suit property as trust estate. It is further alleged inter alia that Lord Jagannath being exintermediary after vesting of the estate applied through petitioner for settlement of the case land in their favour under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (in short "the Act"). After due procedure being followed, the case land was settled in favour of Lord Shri Jagannath through Marfatdar Mahanta Ram Prakash Dash of Bada Akhada Math. The entire income of the case land is spent for religious purposes. After the land was settled, the petitioner used to pay the rent and same has been accepted by the State. The settlement took place on 21.1.1984 and rent schedule was issued in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri Marfatdar Shri Ram Prakash Dash, Bada Akhada Math. Accordingly rent was paid.
(3.)Be it stated that, pursuant to the issuance of rent schedule, the suit land was recorded by Assistant Settlement Officer. While the matter stood thus, the opposite party being the Managing Committee Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu, Puri filed O.E.A. Case No.370 of 1989 under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act. In that proceeding the O.E.A. Collector again passed order to record the suit land in favour of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu marfat Managing Committee on the ground that under Section 5 of the Jagannath Temple Act (in short "the J.T. Act") the Managing Committee is the rightful intermediary to the property. The petitioner challenged such order stating that once the property has been already settled in favour of the Marfatdar petitioner, the O.E.A. Collector has no jurisdiction to resettle the same with the Management of the Templeopposite party. On the other hand, the O.E.A. Collector has no jurisdiction to decide the lease afresh. Hence, the writ petition is filed to quash impugned order of the O.E.A. Collector, Puri.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.