Orissa High Court
Jada Someswar Rao vs State Of Odisha And Others on 21 September, 2023
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
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,
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
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
