GRAFTEK PVT LTD Vs. LINGARAJ MAHAPRAVU BIJE BHUBANESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ applications raise similar questions of law and fact and have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The property involved in the present case admittedly belonged to Lingaraj Temple. Bhubaneswar. In the year 1937, the then Trust Board decided to lease out the disputed property in favour of one Dr. Ramendu Ray after receiving Salami of Rs. 250A. Thereafter, though a formal lease was not executed, Ramendu Ray continued to remain in possession of the disputed property on payment of rent. After demise of Dr. Ramendu Ray, his widow Bibhabati continued to remain in possession. In the year 1970. an application was filed under Section 68 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against Bibhabati challenging the lease as illegal and seeking for recovery of possession under Section 68 of the Act. The application was registered as O.A. No. 66 of 1970. Though the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments allowed the application for recovery of possession, the Commissioner of Endowments in Revision Case No. 6 of 1971 set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner by judgment dated 7.5.1971. Subsequently, the disputed land was sold by Bibhabati to the present petitioners by sale deeds dated 16.6.1973 and some constructions have been made by the petitioners. It appears that after the vesting of all trust estates, the disputed property was settled with Lord Lingaraj and being armed with such settlement, fresh application under Section 25 of the Act was initiated. The Commissioner of Endowments allowed the application and directed eviction of the petitioners. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners filed OJC No. 166 of 1984 which was allowed by judgment dated 26th August, 1991. The contesting opposite party carried the matter to the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 1995. The Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal passed the following order:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the earlier history of litigations, the property could not have been recorded in the name of opposite party No. 1 and at any rate, the petitioners being admit- tedly in possession, the direction regarding de- letion of note of possession was unjustified. The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, supported the decision of the Settlement Commissioner.