MAHANTA SRI PRANAB KISHORE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order passed by the Secretary to Government of Orissa, Law Department in purported exercise of power under Section 19(5) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951 (in short, the 'Act') is assailed in this writ application.

(2.) THE background facts in a nutshell are as follows : On 4 -12 -1985 an application was filed by Sri Pranab Kishore Bharati Goswami (petitioner No. 1) as Mahanta of Bharati Math, Bhubaneswar before the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa (in short, the 'Commissioner') under Section 19 (1) of the Act with a prayer for permission to sell disputed land comprising 13.54 acres. It was stated that the land was lying fallow without giving much yield and income and was situated at a fairly long distance from Bhubaneswar. It was difficult on the part of the Mahanta to look after the property and possibility of the land being encroached upon by outsiders existed. It was stated that the market price that can be fatched per acre in respect of the land in question would be about Rs. 10,000/ -. It was stated that in order to meet the monthly expenses and the repairs of the Matha premises, a substantial amount was necessary to be raised, and therefore, permission was necessary to be granted. By order dated 3 -3:1986, the Commissioner dealt with the matter in O. A. No. 176 of 1985 (II) directing a report to be called for from the Inspector of Endowments and for issuance of notice by publication inviting objection through the concerned Inspector fixing 4 -4 -1986 to be the date of appearance and objection. On that date the inspector of Endowments' submitted his report indicating that the market value of the land would be between Rs. 11,000/ - to Rs. 12,000/ - per acre. After receipt of the report, tine Commissioner of Endowments examined the application on 20 -5 -1986 Certain persons made prayer to be impleaded as objectors. Though the applicant stated that the value would be around Rs. 12,000/ per acre, one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the objectors stated that value of the land would be between' Rs.' 1.5 laks and Rs. 2, lakhs. Order was passed on 23 -9 -1986 by the Commissioner granting sanction for sale. It was stated in the order that the sale would be beneficial for the Math and the valuation given by the Inspector of Endowments was accepted, it was stipulated that the auction was two be held in presence of the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments and the order was to remain valid for a period of six months after the period of appeal and revision is over. Finally, 13.454 acre of land was auctioned at Rs. 12,000/ -per acre and the total amount came to Rs. 1,65,484/ -. A copy of the sanction order passed by the Commissioner was sent to the State Government as required under Section 19(3) and was received by it on 8 -10 -1986, and the order was published on 14 -11 -1986.The auction as required under Rule 4(2)of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Rules,1959(in short the Rules)took place on 14 -11 -1986.There were six participants. Shri A.K. Das Patnaik, the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, who conducted the auction certified that the auction was closed after observing al! formalities and the petitioner No. 2 Shri Pratap Pattnaik was the highest bidder and the offered rate was Rs. 12,300/ - per acre. Petitioner No.1 executed four separate sale -deeds in respect of 12.72 acres of land on 19 -11 -1986, 24 -11 -1986, 26 -11 -1986 and 3 -12 -1986 in favour of auction -purchaser (petitioner No. 2). Against the order of the Commissioner dated 29 -9 -1986 authorising sale, an appeal was filed before the Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Law Department by Biswanath Behera, ' Jairam Das, Pahali Rout son of Bhramar Rout and Pahali Rout, son of Dharama Rout purportedly under Section 19(4) of the Act. The said appeal filed on 27 -11 -1986 was numbered as Appeal No. 12 of 1986. Pratap Pattnaik, the auction purchaser was hot impleaded in the appeal proceeding. Another appeal was filed on 5 -9 -1988 by Surendra Kumar Ojha (opp. party No. 7) and Krushna Chandra Das (opp. party No. 8) which was numbered as Appeal No. 4 of 1980. In the said appeal, petitioner No. 1, the Commissioner, and the appellants in the other appeal were impleaded as respondents. Both the appeals were heard by the then Secretary to the Government of Orissa. Law Department. A proceeding was initiated styling it to be a suo motu revision proceeding and by judgment dated 23 -9 -1991 the order dated 23 -9 -1986 passed by the Commissioner was quashed and the matter was remanded to him with a direction that he should dispose of the application filed by petitioner No. 1 under Section 19 of the Act after making necessary inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The appeal No. 12 of 1986 was treated as a revision and the proceedings were recorded in the file relating to the said appeal.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, initiation of the suo motu revision proceeding was without any sanction of law, and there is no provision far treating an appeal filed by somebody as a revision. In any event, initiation of the proceeding was beyond the prescribed period of limitation and it has no sanctity in law. The learned counsel for State, however, supported the orders submitting that technicality should not stand on the way of substantive justice. A deity is a perpetual minor, and interest of concerned religious institution cannot be overlooked while considering the question of technicality. According to him, the interest of institution is paramount, and considering the apparently ridiculous low valuation at which the property was sold, the Secretary was justified in interfering with the same.