Orissa High Court
Lala Nalini Kumar Ray (Being Dead vs Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije on 10 September, 2025
Author: K.R.Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra, Savitri Ratho
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
IA NO.109 OF 2024
(Arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008
disposed of on18th June, 2016)
****
1. Lala Nalini Kumar Ray (being dead,
his Legal Heirs),
1(a) Swarnalata Mohanty,
W/o late Lala Nalini Kumar Ray
1(b) Debadutta Ray,
S/o late Lala Nalini Kumar Ray,
(now both are residing at C/o Umakanta
Mohanty of Village: Bhingarpur, PO: ...
Bhatapatana, PS: Balianta, Dist: Applicants
Khordha)
(Opposite Party Nos.1(a) and 1(b)
in the Review Petition)
-versus-
1. Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije-
Srikhetra, Puri, represented through
its Administrator of Managing
Committee, Puri, AT/PO/PS/Town:
Puri
2. Secretary to Government of Odisha,
Law Department, Secretariat
Building, Sachibalaya Marg,
Bhubaneswar, Dist: Khordha ... Opposite Parties
(Petitioner and Opposite Party No.2
in the Review Petition)
Advocate for the parties
For Applicants : Miss Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. Ananda Chandra Swain, Advocate
(For Opposite Party No.1)
Mr. Manmaya Kumar Dash,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For Opposite Party No.2)
IA. No.109 of 2024
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Page 1 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
CORAM:
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 25.06.2025 :: Date of Judgment: 10.09.2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
K.R.Mohapatra, J
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
Applicants [Opposite Party Nos.1(a) and 1(b) in RVWPET No.176 of
2008 disposed of on 28th June, 2016] with a prayer to direct the
Administrator of the Managing Committee of Shri Jagannath
Mahaprabhu Bije-Srikhetra at Puri (for brevity 'Temple
Administration') to execute the sale deed in favour of the Applicants
pursuant to order dated 28th June, 2016 and subsequent order dated 5th
August, 2016 passed in the said Review Petition being RVWPET
No.176 of 2008.
3. Relevant facts in brevity necessary for adjudication of the IA
are stated hereunder:-
3.1 One Lala Nalini Kumar Ray, the predecessor of the
Applicants herein had filed OJC No.1483 of 2000 with a prayer to
direct the Temple Administration and Chairman, Puri Municipality
(Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 respectively therein) to settle the land
pertaining to Sabik Plot No.228 under Khata No.75 in mouza
Talabania (Kundheibenta Sahi), Unit-28, corresponding to Hal Plot
Nos.133 and 133/1538 to an extent of Ac.0.120 decimal under Hal
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
Khata No.41 (Ka) and 41 (Kha) respectively (for brevity 'the case
land') in his favour within a stipulated period by accepting the
proportionate amount determined by the competent authorities
pursuant to the Uniform Policy issued by the Law Department,
Government of Odisha for alienation of immovable properties of Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije- Srikhetra at Puri. During pendency of
the writ petition, the Petitioner died and the present Applicants were
substituted in his place vide order No.7 dated 5th July, 2006. The Writ
Petition was disposed of vide order dated 6th August, 2008 with the
following observation and direction:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the State produces the notification
giving details of the market value for sale of land within Puri
town including the land involved in this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the Temple Administration submits
that if the petitioner is agreeable to take the property in the
value fixed by the Law Department, Government of Orissa,
they have no objection to sell the same.
Mr. R.N.Acharya, learned counsel for the State also
states that they do not have any objection for the same.
Mr. R.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to pay the
market value as fixed by the Government in Law Department
vide Notification No.12430 dated 08.08.2005 and so far as
Mouza- Kundheibenta Sahi is concerned, where the land
involved in this case is situated, the rate fixed by the
Government is Rs.4,62,600/- per acre and the property
involved in this case is to the extent of Ac.0.120 decs. in
Mouza- Kundheibenta Sahi, Khata No.75, Plot No.228.
Accordingly, if the petitioners deposit proportionate
amount for extent of land under their possession, i.e., Ac.0.120
decs. as per the market value of the property, within a period
of one month from today before the Temple Administration,
the same shall be accepted and a registered sale deed shall be
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
executed in favour of the petitioners within a period of one
month thereafter. Accordingly, all the records shall be
corrected by recording the land in favour of the petitioners
within Sthitiban status by the Tahasildar, Puri.
This order is passed on the consent of the learned counsel
for both the parties. It goes without saying that the stamp duty
will be paid by the petitioners.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
3.2 The said order though passed on consent, was sought to be
reviewed by the Temple Administration in RVWPET No.176 of
2008. The said Review Petition was disposed of on 28 th June, 2016
with the following order.
"Heard.
Writ Petition bearing W.P.(C) No.1483 of 2000 out of
which the present Review Petition arose was disposed of on
06.08.2008, wherein this Court had directed that in case the
petitioners deposit the proportionate amount for the extent of
land under their possession, i.e., Ac.0.120 decimal as per the
market value of the property within a period of one month
from the date of the order of disposal of the writ petition
before the Temple Administration, the same shall be accepted
and a registered sale deed shall be executed in favour of the
petitioners within a period of one month thereafter.
Accordingly, all the records shall be corrected by recording
the land in favour of the petitioners with Stitiban status by the
Tahasildar, Puri.
The above order was passed on consent of the learned
counsel for both the parties. However, opposite party No.2 has
filed the Review Petition taking a stand that the value of the
land is higher than the rate reflected in order dated
06.08.2008 in view of proceedings of the Land Committee
(State Level) held on 12.07.2005 for approval of valuation of
sale of land of Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri (communicated
by the Deputy Secretary of Law Department, vide letter
No.12430 dated 08.08.2005 addressed to the Chief
Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri)
with regard to sale of land relating to Daitapada Sahi and
Kundhei Benta Sahi, Puri town, which has fixed
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
Rs.53,00,000/- per acre instead of price fixed at Rs.4,62,600/-
per acre.
However, the opposite parties 1(a) and 1(b) are ready
and willing to pay the said higher price as per the affidavit
dated 03.12.2015 during pendency of the Review Petition.
In view of such affidavit, and the fact that the review
petitioners are ready and willing to alienate the property on
the said price, we dispose of the Review Petition modifying the
earlier order dated 06.08.2008 passed in O.J.C. No.1483 of
2000 to the extent that if the petitioners deposit Rs.6,36,000/-
@ Rs.53,00,000/- per acre as per the aforesaid notification
within a period of six weeks, the sale deed shall be executed by
the Temple Administration as directed earlier."
3.3 After disposal of the Review Petition, the Applicants sought
to deposit the amount by way of Bank Draft, but the Temple
Administration did not accept the same for which the Applicants had
filed Misc. Case No.205 of 2016 for a direction to the Temple
Administration to accept the amount sought to be deposited by the
Applicants. The said Misc. Case was disposed of vide order dated 5 th
August, 2016 with a direction to the Temple Administration to accept
the bank draft of Opposite Party No.1(a) and 1(b) (Applicants herein)
on or before 10th August, 2016. It was also directed inter alia that in
the event the Applicants deposit the bank draft, Temple
Administration will proceed with the same as directed by order dated
28th June, 2016 and to complete the process and execute the sale deed
by end of October, 2016. Subsequently, the Temple Administration
filed Misc. Case No.288 of 2016 with a prayer to modify the time
stipulated vide order dated 5th August, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.
205 of 2016 and to grant extension of time for six months to comply
with order dated 5th August, 2016.
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
3.4 In the interregnum, one Ms. Bhabani Panda alias Dash had
also filed Misc. Case No.121 of 2009 for intervention in this Review
Petition. The said intervention petition was rejected vide order dated
28th June, 2016. Said Bhabani Panda alias Dash filed Special Leave to
Appeal (C) Nos.33066-33068 of 2016 challenging the order dated 6th
August, 2008 passed in OJC No.1483 of 2000 and order dated 28th
June, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.121 of 2009 (arising out of
RVWPET No.176 of 2008). She also filed interim applications
bearing CC No.20178-20180 of 2016 therein. Considering the interim
prayer, Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 28 th October, 2016,
directed to maintain status quo in respect of the case land. Said
Special Leave Petitions were finally dismissed as withdrawn on 12th
February 2024 with the following order.
"In view of the statement made by learned counsel for
the petitioner that nothing survives for consideration in
the Special Leave Petition in view the subsequent
development, especially, the Resolution dated 13.07.2017,
the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as having
become infructuous."
Thus, after disposal of the aforesaid Special Leave Petitions, the
Applicants filed the present IA before this Court for implementation
of order dated 6th August, 2008 (passed in OJC No.1483 of 2000) and
orders dated 28th June, 2016 as well as 5th August, 2016 (in RVWPET
No.176 of 2008) indicating therein that the Applicants had already
deposited the bank draft as per order dated 5th August, 2016 passed in
Misc. Case No.205 of 2016, which is lying with the Temple
Administration.
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
4. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Applicants
submitted that an interim application is maintainable for
implementation of orders passed by this Court. In support of her
submissions, she relied upon the ratio in the case of K.A. Ansari and
another Vs. Indian Airlines Limited; reported in (2009) 2 SCC 164,
relevant paragraphs of which are quoted below.
"20. It is manifest that in direction No. (ii), the
learned Single Judge had clearly directed that the writ
petitioners would be entitled `to be posted to a post in
equivalent scale held by them when the letter dated 23rd
April, 2003 was issued.' The respondent - Indian Airlines
was obliged to obey and implement the said direction. If
they had any doubt or if the order was not clear; it was
always open to them to approach the court for
clarification of the said order. Without challenging the
said direction or seeking clarification, Indian Airlines
could not circumvent the same on any ground whatsoever.
Difficulty in implementation of an order passed by the
Court, howsoever, grave its effect may be, is no answer for
its non- implementation.
21. In our opinion, in the miscellaneous application, no
fresh relief, on the basis of a new cause of action, had
been sought. It was an application filed for pursuing and
getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition,
namely, placement in appropriate grade in which he was
placed at the time when letter dated 23rd April, 2003, was
issued. This was precisely done by the learned Single
Judge vide his order dated 4th March, 2005.
22. Without examining those factual aspects of the matter,
in our judgment, the Division Bench was in error in
holding that after the disposal of the writ petitions,
miscellaneous application was not maintainable and the
only remedy available to the appellant was to approach
the authorities and if his interpretation was not acceptable
to them, then he could file a fresh writ petition.
23. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and
set aside the order of the Appellate Bench and restore the
order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4th March,
2005, directing the respondent to implement the main
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
order, dated 11th October, 2004. In the circumstances of
the case, the parties shall bear their own costs."
She, therefore, submitted that the IA being for a direction to
implement the order passed earlier either in the Writ Petition or in the
Review Petition, no fresh relief being claimed in the present I.A., no
new cause of action arises for adjudication of the same. As such, the
IA is maintainable
5. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Applicants arguing
on merit of the I.A. submitted that the issue before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was to set aside the final orders passed both in the
Writ Petition as well as Review Petition together with a prayer to set
aside the orders passed in Misc. Case rejecting the prayer for
intervention. The SLPs(C) were dismissed as infructuous. Thus, upon
dismissal of the SLPs(C) filed by said Bhabani Panda alias Dash
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as infructuous, the order dated 28th
June, 2016 passed in the Review Petition got revived, as no other
proceeding against the said order has been filed or pending. Pursuant
to the direction in RVWPET and interim applications filed therein by
the Applicants, the Applicants have also deposited the amount with
the Temple Administration through bank draft. Thus, the Temple
Administration is under legal obligation to execute the sale deed as
directed by this Court. She, therefore, submits that the Temple
Administration should not make any further delay in executing the
sale deed in respect of the case land.
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
6. Mr. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Temple
Administration objecting to the contentions raised by Miss
Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Applicants, submitted that the
instant interim application is not maintainable on fact and law.
Hence, the same deserves dismissal.
6.1 It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while
recording an order of dismissal of the SLPs(C) as infructuous, took
note of the resolution dated 13th July, 2017. By virtue of said
resolution, the Temple Administration took a decision to construct a
guest house for pilgrims. Said resolution was passed in consonance
with direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinalini Padhi Vs.
Union of India and others; AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1353 keeping in
mind the difficulty faced by the visitors, pilgrims, exploitative
practices deficiencies in management, maintenance of hygiene,
proper utilization of offerings and protection of assets etc. issued
certain guidelines taking into consideration suggestions given by
learned District Judge, Puri and the Amicus Curiae. Relevant portion
of the judgement in Mrinalini Padhi (supra) is quoted below:-
"20. The issue of difficulties faced by the visitors,
exploitative practices, deficiencies in the management,
maintenance of hygiene, proper utilization of offerings and
protection of assets may require consideration with regard to
all Shrines throughout the India, irrespective of religion
practiced in such shrines. It cannot be disputed that this
aspect is covered by List III Item 28 of the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution of India and there is need to look into this
aspect by the Central Government, apart from State
Governments."
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
Thus, an administrative decision was taken to construct a guest house
to provide accommodation to the pilgrims at a subsidized rate. In view
of the developments, Petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
namely, Ms. Bhabani Panda alias Dash withdrew the SLPs(C) as
infructuous. Applicants who were also parties to the said SLPs(C) and
were contesting, did not raise any objection to the same. Thus, in view
of subsequent developments, the direction in Review Petition has
become otiose and is no more available to be implemented. Further,
the amount stated to have been deposited by the Applicants pursuant
to the direction of this Hon'ble Court was never accepted or encashed
by the Temple Administration. In view of the interim order of status
quo passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Temple Administration
could not have accepted the bank draft so deposited and acted upon it.
The ratio in the case of K.A. Ansari (supra) has no application to the
case at hand. In the instant case, subsequent developments have taken
place after the order dated 28th June, 2016 passed in RVWPET No.176
of 2008 and subsequent order dated 5th August, 2016 passed in Misc.
Case No.205 of 2016. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the IA.
7. Mr. Dash, learned ASC supported the stand taken by
Mr. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Temple Administration.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the materials
on record as well as the case laws cited. Considering the rival
contentions of the parties, following issues are cropped up for
consideration.
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
i) Whether the IA in the present form is
maintainable in a disposed of Review Petition?
ii) Whether the Applicants are entitled to any
relief in view of withdrawal of the SLPs(C) as
infructuous?
8.1 Issue No. (i)-Maintainability of the IA
Admittedly, the Review Petition, i.e., RVWPET No.176 of
2006 filed by the Temple Administration was disposed of on 28th
June, 2016 with certain direction as quoted above modifying the
order dated 6th August, 2008 passed on consent in OJC No.1483 of
2000. Subsequently, entertaining an interim application (Misc. Case
No.205 of 2016) filed by the present Applicants to accept the bank
draft and to execute the sale deed in their favour, this Court, vide
order dated 5th August, 2016, directed as under:-
"Considering the same, we direct the review petitioner
to accept the draft of the opposite parties 1 (a) and 1(b)
and for the convenience we fix the date for filing of such
draft along with a forwarding application on or before
10.08.2016. In such event, the review petitioner will
proceed with the same as directed by the order dated
28.06.2016, complete the process and execute the sale
deed by end of October, 2016.
The Misc. Case is accordingly disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy."
When the matter stood thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court entertaining
SLP(C) Nos.33066-33068 of 2016 filed by said Bhabani Panda alias
Dash, passed an interim order of status quo on 28th October, 2016. As
such, the matter could not proceed thereafter. There is also no
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
material on record to show that the bank draft stated to have been
submitted by the Applicants was ever encashed.
8.2 On perusal of the resolution dated 13th July, 2017
(Annexure-R/1 to the objection filed by the Temple Administration),
it reveals that pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee Vs.
Sidhamath (Civil Appeal No.7729 of 2009); (2015) 16 SCC 542, the
Temple Administration took a decision that the case land being on the
side of the Badadanda could not be handed over to any private
individual. Further, a decision was taken in the interest of the public
and pilgrims to construct a guest house for pilgrims to provide
accommodation at subsidized rate instead of alienating the same to
any private individual. If further appears that in view of the interim
order of status quo passed by this Court, the Temple Administration
filed Misc. Case No.288 of 2016 for extension of time to comply with
the order passed in the Review Petition and subsequent Misc. Case
No.205 of 2016. After disposal of SLP(C) Nos.33066-33068 of 2016
filed by said Ms. Bhabani Panda, a Bhakta Niwas (guest house) for
pilgrims has already been constructed over the case land. In view of
the subsequent developments after disposal of the Review Petition,
the ratio in the case of K.A. Ansari (supra) is not applicable to the
case at hand, as subsequent significant developments have taken
place in the interest of the pilgrims in particular and public at large.
In the light of the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of
the Temple Administration (Annexure-R/1), the relief sought for in
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
the IA is no more available to be considered for simple
implementation of the order passed in Review Petition and
subsequent Misc. Case No.205 of 2016. As such, the IA is not
maintainable in the eye of law.
8.3 Issue No.2-Entitlment of Applicants pursuant to disposal
of SLPs(C);
Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dismissing the SLP(C) Nos.
33066-33068 of 2016, took note of the resolution dated 13 th July,
2017. In view of the resolution of the Managing Committee of the
Temple Administration, said Ms. Bhabani Panda did not want to
proceed with the said SLPs(C) and prayed for withdrawal of the
same. Hon'ble Supreme Court accepting such prayer, vide order
dated 12th February, 2024, dismissed the SLPs(C) as infructuous by
accepting the said resolution dated 13th July, 2017 of the Managing
Committee of Sri Jagannath Temple. The Applicants who were
contesting the said SLPs(C), did not raise any objection to the same.
In view of the subsequent developments more particularly the
resolution of the Managing Committee of the Temple Administration
dated 13th July, 2017, which is in the public interest, an individual
interest of the Petitioners has become redundant. Admittedly, the
resolution dated 13th July, 2017 has not been challenged by the
Applicants. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Swain, learned counsel of
the Temple Administration that after dismissal of the SLPs(C), a
guest house has already been constructed over the case land to
provide shelter to the pilgrims at a subsidized rate. It is of course
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
disputed by Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Applicants
submitting that Bhakta Niwas has not been constructed over the case
land. The same being a disputed question of fact we are not inclined
to delve into the same in the present IA, which is filed in a disposed
of Review Petition.
9. Fact remains, situation is not the same at present, which
was prevailing on the date of disposal of the Review Petition, i.e.,
18th June, 2016 or subsequent orders dated 5th August, 2016 passed in
Misc. Case No.205 of 2016. A resolution dated 13th July, 2017 has
been passed by the Managing Committee of the Temple
Administration for construction of a guest house over the case land.
The Applicants being aware of the same did not prefer to challenge
the same. They have also not raised any objection at the time of
disposal of SLPs(C) by Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of the
aforesaid resolution. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the IA.
10. Accordingly, the IA being not maintainable so also being
devoid of any merit, stands dismissed.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
Savitri Ratho,J
11. I have carefully gone through the well-reasoned judgment of
my esteemed brother Justice K.R.Mohapatra and whole heartedly
agree with it. I wish to supplement the judgment on account of two
settled positions of law :-
i) An application for modification and clarification
of the order of disposal in a writ petition lies only in
rare cases.
ii) The deity is a perpetual minor, for which its
interests have to be safeguarded by the State as well
as the Courts.
12. The relevant facts have been stated by my esteemed brother
and hence are not necessary to be reiterated except where I thought it
was absolutely necessary.
13. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is wide in scope. It is also well-established by
umpteen number of judicial pronouncements that the High Courts
may in exercise of this power, issue not only final writs but also
interim directions to safeguard rights during pendency of the
proceedings. But once a writ petition is disposed of, the Court is
deemed to be functus officio and an interim application is normally
not entertained, unless it is for correction of arithmetical or clerical
errors and occasionally for clarification of the judgment. An interim
application may be entertained if it has been filed for pursuing and
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition. The same
principle would apply in a review petition. But the scope of
entertaining an interim application in a disposed of review petition, is
further narrowed as the matter has already been tested and decided by
the Court twice.
14. The operative portion of the decision in K.A. Ansari
(supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in this
interim application, has already been quoted by my learned brother,
but after going through the judgment, I feel it is imperative to extract
paragraph 17 of the judgment, which is as follows:-
"17. It is trite that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a
judgment merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. It needs little emphasis that when the
proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ
petition, it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings
by means of miscellaneous application in respect of a matter
which provides fresh cause of action. If this principle is not
followed, there would be confusion and chaos and the finality
of proceedings would cease to have any meaning. (See: State
of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma & Anr.1(1987) 2
SCC 179). At the same time, there is no prohibition on a
party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and
the party against whom it has been made is trying to take
advantage because the order is couched in ambiguous or
equivocal words."
15. In the case of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., and others
vs Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. and Another; 2024 SCC OnLine SC
313, where the Supreme Court was dealing with an interim
application filed after disposal of the Special Leave Petition, it has
been observed as follows: -
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
"We felt it necessary to examine the question about
maintainability of the present application as we are of the
view that it was necessary to spell out the position of law as
to when such post-disposal miscellaneous applications can be
entertained after a matter is disposed of. This Court has
become functus officio and does not retain jurisdiction to
entertain an application after the appeal was disposed of by
the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court on
31.08.2020 through a course beyond that specified in the
statute. This is not an application for correcting any clerical
or arithmetical error. Neither it is an application for
extension of time. A post disposal application for
modification and clarification of the order of disposal shall
lie only in rare cases, where the order passed by this Court is
executory in nature and the directions of the Court may
become impossible to be implemented because of subsequent
events or developments.
The factual background of this Application does
not fit into that description."
16. Recently, in the case of Ajay Kumar Jain vs The State of
Uttar Pradesh and another; 2024 INSC 958, relying on the decision
in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court has
held as follows: -
"17. Thus, this Court made it abundantly clear that a
miscellaneous application filed in a disposed of proceedings
would be maintainable only for the purpose of correcting any
clerical or arithmetical error. The Court further clarified that
a post disposal application for modification or clarification
of the order would lie only in rare cases where the order
passed by this Court is executory in nature and the directions
of the Court may have become impossible to be implemented
because of subsequent events or developments.
18. The Registry shall not circulate any miscellaneous
application filed in a disposed of proceedings unless and
until there is a specific averment on oath that the filing of the
miscellaneous application has been necessitated as the order
passed in the main proceedings being executory in nature
and have become impossible to be implemented because of
subsequent events or developments."
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
17. This is the second interim application filed by the
applicants Opposite Parties No.1 (a) and 1(b) in RVWPET No.176
of 2008 disposed of on 28th June, 2016.
18. Misc. case No. 121 of 2009 for intervention had been filed
in the Review Petition by one Bhabani Panda @ Dash stating inter
alia that she was in possession of the property for more than fifty
years, and was therefore a necessary party in the case. Her application
for intervention was dismissed on 28th June 2016.
19. After disposal of the Review Petition, Misc Case No. 205 of
2016 had been filed by the applicants in the present I.A., for a direction
to the Temple Administration to accept the Bank Draft, which they
wanted to deposit as the same was not being accepted. This Court
entertained the interim application and by order dated 5th August, 2016,
directed the Temple Administration to accept the bank draft of the
applicants on or before 10th August, 2016 and it was also inter alia
directed that the sale deed shall be executed before end of October 2016.
20. In fact, after passing of the orders on 28th June, 2016 and
5th August, 2016 in this Review Petition, much water has flown down
the Mahanadi, as there have been many developments thereafter.
21. An interim application - Misc. Case No.288 of 2016 was
filed in this Review Petition by the Temple Administration for
extension of time of six months for compliance of the order of the
High Court, stating inter alia that Bhabani Panda had filed O.J.C. No.
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
2434 of 2000 for settlement of the land in her favour and the writ
petition had been disposed of directing the Temple Authority to
consider her grievance along with the claim of Lala Nalini Kumar
Ray, petitioner in OJC No. 2434 of 2000. A proceeding- Case No. 22/
2001 had been instituted and after hearing the parties, it had been
directed to put the land to public auction. Thereafter, she had filed
O.J.C. No.16236 of 2001 while Lala Nalini Kumar Ray had filed
O.J.C. No.15005 of 2001. While the writ petition filed by Bhabani
Panda was disposed of on 9th January, 2008 granting liberty to her to
file appeal, the writ petition filed by Lala Nalini Kumar Ray was
disposed of directing the Temple Administration to execute sale deed.
Bhabani Panda filed Appeal No.1 of 2009 before the Appellate
Authority. After disposal of Review Petition, Bhabani Panda had filed
W.P.(C) No. 18944 of 2008 for a direction for settlement of the land
in her favour. This writ petition was disposed directing for disposal of
the Appeal filed by her within two months and not to alienate the land
till disposal of the appeal. No order has been passed on this Misc
Case. It was also stated that in the meantime the said Bhabani Panda
has preferred S.L.P(Civil) against the order passed in Review Petition
No. 176/2008 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and had
prayed not to sell the land in question till disposal of the S.L.P(Civil).
22. Bhabani Panda @ Dash who had filed Misc Case No.121
of 2009 for intervention in this Review Petition which had been
rejected by this Court on 28th June, 2016, had filed Special Leave to
Appeal (C) Nos.33066-33068 of 2016 challenging the order dated 6th
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
August, 2008 passed in OJC No.1483 of 2000 as well as the order
dated 28th June, 2016 passed in Misc. Case No.121 of 2009 (arising
out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008), along with interim application -
CC No.20178-20180 of 2016.
23. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 28th October, 2016,
directed to maintain status quo in respect of the case land.
24. In view of the developments which had taken place during
pendency of Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.33066-33068 of 2016
before the Supreme Court, especially the resolution dated 13th July,
2017, on the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners
therein, on 12th February, 2024, the Appeals were dismissed by the
Supreme Court as infructuous. The petitioners in this interim
application, did not raise any objection at that time.
25. It has been stated in the affidavit filed in this interim application
by the Temple Administration, that the Temple Administration has
passed a resolution on 13th July, 2017, earmarking the suit land for
construction of a guest house meant for pilgrims and devotees.
26. A guest house to provide accommodation at subsidized rates
to the devotees who come to Puri and are in need of accommodation,
would undisputedly be in the interest of the deity - Lord Jagannath.
The resolution in this regard is also in consonance with the directions
and decisions of the Supreme Court in Shri Jagannath Temple
Managing Committee (supra) and Mrinalini Padhi (supra).
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
27. The Supreme Court in the case of A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs.
Cochin Devaswom Board and others; AIR 2007 SC 3162, has held
as under:-
"10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom
Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their
trustees/archakas/ shebaits/employees. Instances are many
where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and
safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and
Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such
properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy,
or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passive
or active collusion of the authorities concerned. Such acts of
"fences eating the crops" should be dealt with sternly. The
Government, members or trustees of boards/trusts, and
devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or
encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and
safeguard the properties of religious and charitable
institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation."
28. The Uniform Policy issued by the Law Department,
Government of Odisha for alienation of immovable properties of Shri
Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije- Srikhetra at Puri (in short "Uniform
Policy"), had been framed keeping the interest of the deity- Lord
Jagannath as well as the persons in long possession of such land.
Orders for sale of the case land had been passed pursuant to the said
policy. The Uniform Policy does not give any absolute right to a
person to possess or purchase any land belonging to Lord Jagannath.
The interest of Lord Jagannath has to be paramount. Any alienation
has to be in the interest of Lord Jagannath, the deity. In the present
case, during pendency of the SLPs before the Supreme Court, the
resolution has been passed by the competent authority of the temple
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
Signed by: SASANKA SEKHAR SATAPATHY
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA CUTTACK
Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:45:39
management on 13.07.2017. Such a resolution is in the interest of
Lord Jagannath.
29. In view of the developments subsequent to passing of orders
dated 28th June, 2016 and 5th August 2016 in this Review Petition it is
not a simple case where the present I.A. has been filed "for pursuing
and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition."
30. In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to above and as it is the duty of the Court to safeguard the
interest of Lord Jagannath who is a perpetual minor and construction
of the guest house for his devotees is in the interest of Lord
Jagannath, I do not find any reason to entertain the interim
application where prayer has been made for execution of the sale
deed and to hand over the case land.
31. For the aforesaid reasons, I agree with the decision of my
esteemed brother that there is no reason as to why we should
entertain this interim application and direct the authorities to execute
the sale deed and hand over possession of the case land.
32. The IA stands dismissed as apart from being not
maintainable, it is bereft of any merit.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
High Court of Orissa
Dated the 10th day of September 2025/ s.s.satapathy
(arising out of RVWPET No.176 of 2008)
