LAWS(ORI)-2003-3-43

JAGANNATH TEMPLE MANAGING Vs. NARAYAN MOHAPATRA

Decided On March 27, 2003
Jagannath Temple Managing Appellant
V/S
Narayan Mohapatra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against reversing judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in Title Appeal No. 14/37 of 1984/83 dated 6th May, 1985 whereby and whereunder the plaintiff's suit for declaration of his right to place 'Bhogas' on 'Bada' bad Chhamu Kona Panti' was decreed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff respondent is as follows : The plaintiff is one of the recognised Suara sebaya'ts of Lord Jagannath Temple, Puri who claims to have hereditary right to place his Bhogas in earthen pots on the Badabad Chhamu Kona Panti to offer the deity Bada Thakura Balabhadra Jew. According to the prevailing practice, Bhogas are usually offered daily at least four times which are known as Saka! Dhupa, Bhogamandap, Dwiprahara Dhupa and Sandhya Dhupa. Except the time of offering Bhogamandap the sebayat like Supakars, Suaras and Mahasuaras used to keep their cooked food in Handis (earthen pots) at a specified area within sanctum sanctorum which is locally known as 'Bhitara Pokharia' in front of 'Ratna Singhasan' of the Lords Balabhadra, Subhadra, Jagannath and Sudarsana. Before offering Bhogas in the 'Bhitara Pokharia' the concerned Puja Pandas demarcate the places where the Bhogas of four deities are to be placed every day by stone dusts, locally known as 'Muruja'. They also divide the areas into small patches indicating the places where the different Suaras/ Supakars are to place their Handis containing Bhogas and the said places are called 'Badas' and the specific places being earmarked in the 'Badas' meant for placing the 'Bhogas' for offering to the deities are known as 'Panti' or 'Chhamupanti'.

(3.) THE defendant appellants filed their written statement, inter alia, stating that all the Supakaras have no right to cook food and offer the same to the deities. A few of them have been given the said privilege. The regular Bhogas which are offered to the deities are known as 'Kotha Bhogas'. If any extra Bhoga is to be offered, it can only be done with the permission of the temple authorities. Only the persons, who are given this privilege to cook and offer Bhogas in the three Dhupas during the day could do it. The Supakaras are not permitted to place their Bhogas specified in Bhitara Pokharia and Bhogamandapa as a matter of right. It is only with the permission given by the Raja of Puri or his Dewan they used to offer Bhogas. The permission is revocable and the persons desirous to place their Bhogas at the time of Chhamupanti can also be denied of that right. The defendant appellants, on the other hand have taken a plea that the right of the Sebayats in placing Bhogas in the panti is neither hereditary nor transferable. If there has been any such recognition by any such person connected with the management of the Temple at any point of time, then it is illegal and unenforceable. The R.O.R. does not confer any permanent right on any Suara or any other Sebak to offer Bhoga in the Panti. By the order dated 1.10.1977. the Assistant Administrator referred to the sale deed and found that there, was no mention of any Panti or the number of earthen pots to be placed in accordance with R.O.R. Therefore, he did not allow the respondent to place two earthen pots in the Panti as claimed by him. That matter was left open for further enquiry. The Committee after due deliberation has resolved to make further enquiry and decide as to how different persons should be allowed to acquire the Panti. As per Section 15 of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1954, the appellants are empowered to make adequate arrangement for performance of Seba puja and observance of periodical niti of the Temple. Assuming, there has been any licence or permission granted to any person to enjoy a particular privilege, it can be revoked at any time by the management of the Temple. As a matter of fact, the Administrator of the Temple has withdrawn that privilege from many Sebaks for regulation the nitis and preforming the same in time. With these prayers the appellants claimed dismissal of the suit.