IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.26312 of 2023
Jada Someswar Rao .... Petitioner
Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. K. Nanda, Addl. Govt. Advocate
Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
CORAM:
JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
ORDER
21.09.2023 Order No.
02. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is the trustee. There was auction sale of the deity's property, permission for which was granted on 25th March, 2008. On 6th December, 2008 the Principal Secretary to Government, Law Department made order directing case land be sold by public auction fixing upset price at Rs.3 lakhs per acre in favour of highest bidder. He submits, there was auction held after obtaining several extensions of time, on 21st April, 2023. Sale deed was Page 1 of 4 presented for registration on 26th April, 2023 and by impugned order dated 22nd May, 2023, the Registrar refused to register the document saying, inter alia, intention of the Government to not purchase was not given in Form-AB as provided in rule 4B in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959. He relies on judgment dated 6th September, 2021 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.5815 of 2009 (Assistant Excise Commissioner, Kottayam v. Esthappan Cherian), paragraphs 14, 15 and 20 (Indian Kanoon print).
2. Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and Ms. Naidu, learned advocate for the Commissioner. They submit, going by the prayer, this Bench does not have assignment. Mr. Dash submits, this Bench has assignment over moveable and immovable properties of, inter alia, Hindu Religious Endowments and subject land auctioned was immovable property of the deity.
3. Challenge in the writ petition is based on subsequent enactment to insert by amendment, section 19-C in Odisha Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951. Mr. Dash submits, Page 2 of 4 permission for the same was given under section 19 on 25th March, 2008. Holding of the auction was execution of the order. The permission order did not and could not have required notice to the Government on its intention to purchase, as inserted by the amendment not there at the time. The execution of the order by auction could not be done earlier and there were several extensions, resulting in the auction finally held on 21st April, 2023. The sale deed was presented for registration but by impugned order dated 22nd May, 2023 the Registrar refused on omission of certificate in Form-AB regarding the Government's intention not to purchase the land. He submits further, the permission granted under section 19 was well within knowledge of the Government all throughout and hence, insisting upon the certificate, necessitated by subsequent amendment in the law, should be interfered with.
4. We by our order dated 29th August, 2023 had appointed Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned advocate as amicus curiae. He appears and submits, the Supreme Court in BCCI v. Kochi Cricket (P) Limited reported in (2018) 6 SCC 287, paragraph-39 had dealt with situation on subsequent Page 3 of 4 amendment to Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court declared that the amendment Act is prospective in nature.
5. On query from Court Mr. Dash submits, since his clients being the managing trustee and the deity already been paid the consideration, it is his duty to have the document registered. He presented the document for registration and by impugned order the registration was not done. Hence, he is before Court.
6. Petitioner will apply for adding the purchaser as party.
7. List on 27th September, 2023.
(Arindam Sinha) Judge (S. K. Mishra) Judge Sks Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SISIR KUMAR SETHI Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 21-Sep-2023 17:51:56 Page 4 of 4