NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6122 OF 2008
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABANI BALLAV DEY & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. The application for intervention is dismissed.
2. Appellant No. 1 - State of Orissa is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 14.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa in RSA No. 10 of 2002
and Misc. Case No. 65 of 2008.
3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we shall extract the
short impugned order as under :-
"The appellants and respondent no. 2 have filed a petition under Order 23
Rule 3 of the CPC for compromise stating therein that to cut short the long
term litigation and for the benefit and improvement of the respondent no. 2
Religious Trust they want to compound the matter. Previously the parties
had filed Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006 for recording compromise in the
appeal. But the Tahasildar, Cuttack raised objection on the plea that the
property under litigation has high market value and the amount contemplated
in compromise is very low. Objection was also raised by the Commissioner
of Endowments that in absence of the permission of the Commissioner u/s 19
of the OHRE Act, the compromise cannot be effected as the compromise will
create stitiban tenancy in favour of the appellants. The prayer for
compromise was accordingly, disallowed for want of permission of the
Commissioner of endowments u/s 19 of the OHRE Act. The parties, therefore,
filed the present petition for compromise indicating inter alia that
permission of the Commissioner of endowments has been obtained for the
compromise and the amount to be paid by the appellants has been raised to
Rupees thirty lakhs. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner
of Endowments wherein it is stated that Deputy Commissioner of endowments
by successive letters dated 5.2.2008 and 31.3.2008 intimated the respondent
No.2 that no permission can be accorded for compromise in the greater
interest of the institution. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit
that present petition for compromise is not maintainable after the order of
rejection in Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006. Reply to this affidavit of the
Commissioner of Endowments has been filed by the respondent no. 2 to the
effect that the letters of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under
Annexures A & B are to be ignored as the Commissioner of Endowments in Memo
No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 granted permission to respondent no. 2 to effect
compromise in the second appeal.
In this regard, the appellants and respondent no. 2 rely on the
order dated 28.4.1989 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa passed in
OA No. 171 of 1988-II under Section 19 of the Act, Order No. 7 dated
11.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Endowments in misc. Case No. 17 of 2005
and Memo No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 of the office of the Commissioner of
Endowments, Orissa. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Commissioner of Endowments rely on Memo No. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369
dated 31.3.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to
respondent no. 2. In the order in A. No. 171of 1988 on the prayer of the
respondent no. 2, the Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission for
sale of the lands of the religious institution fixing minimum rate at Rs.
20,000/- per gunth for lands adjoining road and at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-
per gunth for other lands. In order dated 11.12.2006 of Misc. Case No. 17
of 2005 it is reflected that permission was sought for the compromise, but
because it was submitted that the matter does not come within the purview
of section 19 of the OHRE Act, the misc. case was dropped and the matter
was left to be dealt with in management side. In memo No. 10864 respondent
no.2 was permitted to enter into compromise in the second appeal, if he so
wants. But thereafter, in Memo nos. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated
13.3.2008 respondent no. 2 was intimated by the Deputy Commissioner of
Endowments that he cannot be permitted to enter into a compromise in the
greater interest of the institution. All these documents show that
initially the Commissioner of Endowments had permitted for sale of the
lands of the institution for rupees seven lakhs approximately, but
litigation crept in and no such sale could be effected. Now, by way of
compromise respondent no. 2 is willing to create stitiban tenancy in favour
of the appellants in respect of the same lands of religious institution in
exchange for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the
religious institution. The Commissioner of Endowments has also passed
order and intimated the order to respondent no.2 that he can enter into a
compromise. The previous orders passed under section 19 of the Act and the
present order permitting respondent no.2 to enter into compromise passed by
the Commissioner of Endowments in substance amounts to accord of permission
under section 19 of the OHRE Act. Dr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for
Commissioner of Endowments, however, states that because the money aid by
the appellants will go for the benefit of religious institution, the
parties may do well to raise the amount considering the fact that the suit
lands are now urban valuable lands. After this submission of Dr. Rath,
there was a discussion in open court and learned counsel for the appellants
on instruction submitted that instead of rupees thirty lakhs, the
appellants would pay rupees forty five lakhs and that may be incorporated
in the terms of compromise. A memo was also filed in this regard.
Since the parties are willing to enter into compromise and end the
litigation and the Commissioner of Endowments has permitted the respondent
no. 1 to enter into such compromise and since the amount offered by the
appellants is more than six and half times of the amount initially set by
the Commissioner of Endowments, the prayer for compromise is allowed and
the appeal is disposed of on compromise according to the terms of the
compromise. The compromise petition along with memo enhancing the
compromise amount from rupees thirty lakhs to rupees forty five lakhs will
form part of the decree.
The appeal and misc. case are thus disposed of."
4. It is the main contention of the State that the property of the Deity
could not have been disposed of by way of a compromise as referred to in
the impugned order. After having heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned senior
counsel appearing for the State and also the learned counsel for the
respondents, on 14.01.2016, this Court passed the following order :-
"Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and
also learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that it
would be in the interest of all the parties, that the matter is considered
afresh by the Commissioner of Endowments in exercise of power under Section
19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.
We Permit the Respondent No.3 herein to make a fresh application
before the Commissioner within two weeks from today and the Commissioner,
after hearing the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as respondents, consider
the application on merits and pass appropriate order within a period of one
month thereafter.
We make it clear that the orders already passed by the Commissioner
of Endowments in the matter, shall not stand in the way of the Commissioner
considering the matter afresh and passing appropriate orders.
However, we make it clear that this order is passed without prejudice
to the contentions raised by parties before this Court.
Post after six weeks."
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State today has made available
the order of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar dated
24.02.2016. According to the Endowment Commissioner also, Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 have long been in possession of the property. The Deity and the
Math are in a neglected position and for want of funds, no improvements
could be made. The Deity is badly in need of money and having regard to
the background of litigation, the property needs to be, in any case,
disposed of. We shall extract the relevant consideration of the Endowment
Commissioner :-
"7..........The case land is located in urban area in one patch. The case
land is situated by the side of main road which runs from Biju Pattnaik
Chhak to Deula Sahi of Cuttack Town. Plot No. 321 has been recorded as
Jalasaya kisam, but major part of that plot is filled with sand and earth.
Permission for sale of the case land was accorded in O.A.No. 171/1988 vide
order dated 28.02.1989, but the same could not be sold within the
stipulated period of one year due to several litigations. The case
deity/institution is not getting any income from the case land due to
number of litigations. In case of sale of the case land, the deity will
get a considerable amount by way of interest from long term fixed deposit
of the sale proceeds. The report of the concerned Inspector of Endowments
as well as the Bench mark valuation of the case land obtained from the
District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack indicate that the cost of plot no. 317 of
kisam Gharabari is Rs. 4 crores forty lakhs (Rupees four crores forty
lakhs) per acre. The cost of plot No. 318 of kisam Bagayat is Rs. 2 crores
75 lakhs (Rupees two crores seventy five lakhs) per acre. The cost of plot
No. 320 of kisam Gharabari is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs (Rupees two crores
seventy five lakhs) per acre. The cost of plot No. 321 of kisam Jalasaya
is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs (Rupees two crores seventy five lakhs) per acre.
8. Thus, I found that the case land belongs to the deity Sri Sri
Raghunath Jew, bije Matha Sahi, Tulasipur of Cuttack Town under Bidanasi P.
S. marfat Mahant Bijoy Narayan Ramanuja Das which has been reflected in the
R.O.R. vide Ext. 1 produced by the petitioners. Admittedly, the
deity/institution is public in nature. So, necessary permission/sanction
order U/S. 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 is required to sell the case land
of the deity for any legal necessity. The report of the concerned
Inspector of Endowments and the R.O.R. of the case land and the management
file available in the Endowment Office indicate that Mahant Bijoy Narayan
Ramanuja Das is the Hereditary Trustee of the deity/institution and as such
he has filed the case U/s 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 before the Court of
the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in order to sell the
landed properties of the deity/institution for legal necessity, which is
beneficial for the deity/institution.
9. As regards the legal necessity, I found that the petitioner Math is
an old institution. During my tour I have seen the deity/institution as
well as the case land located at Tulasipur of Cuttack Town. The Temple and
the surrounding pucca houses of the institution are now standing in
dilapidated condition which require major repair/renovation and for that
purpose huge amount of money is required. The deity/institution has no
funds to meet the above expenses. The only way is open to the
deity/institution to sell some landed properties. The deity/institution
has some cultivable lands which are now under the possession of the the
institution. But the case land is now under the possession of the O.Ps
since long and the institution is not getting anything from the case land.
It will be very expensive on the part of the institution to evict the O.Ps
from the case land through litigations. Therefore, in my opinion it will be
beneficial for the deity/institution to sell the case land in order to meet
the above legal necessity of the deity/institution. The O.Ps No. 1 and 2
are now staying over in the case land with their family members after
constructing their house over it. The O.Ps are now ready and willing to
purchase the case land at the reasonable rate fixed by this Court. If the
case lands are sold away and the sale proceeds deposited in any
Nationalised Bank under Long Term Fixed deposit scheme, the
deity/institution will definitely get substantial income annually in safe
of interest. Hence, I feel that it is necessary to sell away the case land
for the above legal necessity which is beneficial for the
deity/institution.
6. It is seen from the order at Paragraph 5 that prior to the
consideration of the matter, the Endowment Commissioner had given a public
notice and that, "In spite of publication of notice, no objection has been
received from any corner."
7. The Endowment Commissioner having taken note of the fact that the
circle rate available could be less than the actual market price, passed
the order for auctioning the property with upset price at Rs. 5 crores per
acre for the first item, Rs. 4 crores per acre for the second item and Rs.
3 crores per acre for the third item.
8. It is seen from the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner that
even if the property is put to auction, it is likely to ensue a long drawn
litigation in the matter of eviction of the present occupants.
9. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, on instruction and
after referring to the records, submits that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
been in occupation of the property since 1956.
10. The offer originally made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the High
Court was for Rs. 30 Lakhs, which was enhanced to Rs. 45 Lakhs and it was
on Rs.45 Lakhs, the compromise was entered into and the appeal was disposed
of by the High Court by the impugned Judgment in 2008.
11. When the appeal was pending before this Court, by way of an
application filed in July, 2015, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 offered an amount
of Rs.80 Lakhs, whereas the intervenor had offered an amount of Rs.1.68
crores.
12. Having regard to the background of the litigation, having regard to
the dire necessity for the Deity to dispose of the property, having regard
to the fact that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been in occupation of the
property since 1956 and that they have constructed their houses in the
property, we are of the view that it is in the interest of all concerned to
put a quietus to the litigations between the State and Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 of the sale of the property under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu
Religious Endowment Act.
13. After considering the suggestions made from all quarters and having
regard to the offers made before this Court, having regard to the circle
rate and market rate and having regard to more than five decades of the
admitted occupancy by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we fix the rate at Rs. 2.75
crores for the entire property now occupied by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
14. This amount shall be deposited by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a
period of three months from today. On such deposit, whatever rights
available to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of property under Section 19
of the Act shall be transferred to them.
15. In view of the above observations and directions, this civil appeal
is disposed of with no order as to costs.
16. We make it clear that this Judgment is passed in the peculiar
background of the case we have extracted above and the same shall not be
treated as a precedent.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
March 02, 2016.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6122 OF 2008
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
ABANI BALLAV DEY & ORS. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. The application for intervention is dismissed.
2. Appellant No. 1 - State of Orissa is aggrieved by the impugned order
dated 14.05.2008 passed by the High Court of Orissa in RSA No. 10 of 2002
and Misc. Case No. 65 of 2008.
3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, we shall extract the
short impugned order as under :-
"The appellants and respondent no. 2 have filed a petition under Order 23
Rule 3 of the CPC for compromise stating therein that to cut short the long
term litigation and for the benefit and improvement of the respondent no. 2
Religious Trust they want to compound the matter. Previously the parties
had filed Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006 for recording compromise in the
appeal. But the Tahasildar, Cuttack raised objection on the plea that the
property under litigation has high market value and the amount contemplated
in compromise is very low. Objection was also raised by the Commissioner
of Endowments that in absence of the permission of the Commissioner u/s 19
of the OHRE Act, the compromise cannot be effected as the compromise will
create stitiban tenancy in favour of the appellants. The prayer for
compromise was accordingly, disallowed for want of permission of the
Commissioner of endowments u/s 19 of the OHRE Act. The parties, therefore,
filed the present petition for compromise indicating inter alia that
permission of the Commissioner of endowments has been obtained for the
compromise and the amount to be paid by the appellants has been raised to
Rupees thirty lakhs. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Commissioner
of Endowments wherein it is stated that Deputy Commissioner of endowments
by successive letters dated 5.2.2008 and 31.3.2008 intimated the respondent
No.2 that no permission can be accorded for compromise in the greater
interest of the institution. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit
that present petition for compromise is not maintainable after the order of
rejection in Misc. Case No. 189 of 2006. Reply to this affidavit of the
Commissioner of Endowments has been filed by the respondent no. 2 to the
effect that the letters of the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments under
Annexures A & B are to be ignored as the Commissioner of Endowments in Memo
No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 granted permission to respondent no. 2 to effect
compromise in the second appeal.
In this regard, the appellants and respondent no. 2 rely on the
order dated 28.4.1989 of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa passed in
OA No. 171 of 1988-II under Section 19 of the Act, Order No. 7 dated
11.12.2006 of the Commissioner of Endowments in misc. Case No. 17 of 2005
and Memo No. 10864 dated 5.9.2007 of the office of the Commissioner of
Endowments, Orissa. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
Commissioner of Endowments rely on Memo No. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369
dated 31.3.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments to
respondent no. 2. In the order in A. No. 171of 1988 on the prayer of the
respondent no. 2, the Commissioner of Endowments accorded permission for
sale of the lands of the religious institution fixing minimum rate at Rs.
20,000/- per gunth for lands adjoining road and at the rate of Rs. 15,000/-
per gunth for other lands. In order dated 11.12.2006 of Misc. Case No. 17
of 2005 it is reflected that permission was sought for the compromise, but
because it was submitted that the matter does not come within the purview
of section 19 of the OHRE Act, the misc. case was dropped and the matter
was left to be dealt with in management side. In memo No. 10864 respondent
no.2 was permitted to enter into compromise in the second appeal, if he so
wants. But thereafter, in Memo nos. 1589 dated 5.2.2008 and 4369 dated
13.3.2008 respondent no. 2 was intimated by the Deputy Commissioner of
Endowments that he cannot be permitted to enter into a compromise in the
greater interest of the institution. All these documents show that
initially the Commissioner of Endowments had permitted for sale of the
lands of the institution for rupees seven lakhs approximately, but
litigation crept in and no such sale could be effected. Now, by way of
compromise respondent no. 2 is willing to create stitiban tenancy in favour
of the appellants in respect of the same lands of religious institution in
exchange for a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the
religious institution. The Commissioner of Endowments has also passed
order and intimated the order to respondent no.2 that he can enter into a
compromise. The previous orders passed under section 19 of the Act and the
present order permitting respondent no.2 to enter into compromise passed by
the Commissioner of Endowments in substance amounts to accord of permission
under section 19 of the OHRE Act. Dr. Rath, learned counsel appearing for
Commissioner of Endowments, however, states that because the money aid by
the appellants will go for the benefit of religious institution, the
parties may do well to raise the amount considering the fact that the suit
lands are now urban valuable lands. After this submission of Dr. Rath,
there was a discussion in open court and learned counsel for the appellants
on instruction submitted that instead of rupees thirty lakhs, the
appellants would pay rupees forty five lakhs and that may be incorporated
in the terms of compromise. A memo was also filed in this regard.
Since the parties are willing to enter into compromise and end the
litigation and the Commissioner of Endowments has permitted the respondent
no. 1 to enter into such compromise and since the amount offered by the
appellants is more than six and half times of the amount initially set by
the Commissioner of Endowments, the prayer for compromise is allowed and
the appeal is disposed of on compromise according to the terms of the
compromise. The compromise petition along with memo enhancing the
compromise amount from rupees thirty lakhs to rupees forty five lakhs will
form part of the decree.
The appeal and misc. case are thus disposed of."
4. It is the main contention of the State that the property of the Deity
could not have been disposed of by way of a compromise as referred to in
the impugned order. After having heard Mr. P. S. Patwalia, learned senior
counsel appearing for the State and also the learned counsel for the
respondents, on 14.01.2016, this Court passed the following order :-
"Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and
also learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that it
would be in the interest of all the parties, that the matter is considered
afresh by the Commissioner of Endowments in exercise of power under Section
19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951.
We Permit the Respondent No.3 herein to make a fresh application
before the Commissioner within two weeks from today and the Commissioner,
after hearing the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 as well as respondents, consider
the application on merits and pass appropriate order within a period of one
month thereafter.
We make it clear that the orders already passed by the Commissioner
of Endowments in the matter, shall not stand in the way of the Commissioner
considering the matter afresh and passing appropriate orders.
However, we make it clear that this order is passed without prejudice
to the contentions raised by parties before this Court.
Post after six weeks."
5. The learned counsel appearing for the State today has made available
the order of the Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneswar dated
24.02.2016. According to the Endowment Commissioner also, Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 have long been in possession of the property. The Deity and the
Math are in a neglected position and for want of funds, no improvements
could be made. The Deity is badly in need of money and having regard to
the background of litigation, the property needs to be, in any case,
disposed of. We shall extract the relevant consideration of the Endowment
Commissioner :-
"7..........The case land is located in urban area in one patch. The case
land is situated by the side of main road which runs from Biju Pattnaik
Chhak to Deula Sahi of Cuttack Town. Plot No. 321 has been recorded as
Jalasaya kisam, but major part of that plot is filled with sand and earth.
Permission for sale of the case land was accorded in O.A.No. 171/1988 vide
order dated 28.02.1989, but the same could not be sold within the
stipulated period of one year due to several litigations. The case
deity/institution is not getting any income from the case land due to
number of litigations. In case of sale of the case land, the deity will
get a considerable amount by way of interest from long term fixed deposit
of the sale proceeds. The report of the concerned Inspector of Endowments
as well as the Bench mark valuation of the case land obtained from the
District Sub-Registrar, Cuttack indicate that the cost of plot no. 317 of
kisam Gharabari is Rs. 4 crores forty lakhs (Rupees four crores forty
lakhs) per acre. The cost of plot No. 318 of kisam Bagayat is Rs. 2 crores
75 lakhs (Rupees two crores seventy five lakhs) per acre. The cost of plot
No. 320 of kisam Gharabari is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs (Rupees two crores
seventy five lakhs) per acre. The cost of plot No. 321 of kisam Jalasaya
is Rs. 2 crores 75 lakhs (Rupees two crores seventy five lakhs) per acre.
8. Thus, I found that the case land belongs to the deity Sri Sri
Raghunath Jew, bije Matha Sahi, Tulasipur of Cuttack Town under Bidanasi P.
S. marfat Mahant Bijoy Narayan Ramanuja Das which has been reflected in the
R.O.R. vide Ext. 1 produced by the petitioners. Admittedly, the
deity/institution is public in nature. So, necessary permission/sanction
order U/S. 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 is required to sell the case land
of the deity for any legal necessity. The report of the concerned
Inspector of Endowments and the R.O.R. of the case land and the management
file available in the Endowment Office indicate that Mahant Bijoy Narayan
Ramanuja Das is the Hereditary Trustee of the deity/institution and as such
he has filed the case U/s 19 of the O.H.R.E. Act, 1951 before the Court of
the Commissioner of Endowments, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in order to sell the
landed properties of the deity/institution for legal necessity, which is
beneficial for the deity/institution.
9. As regards the legal necessity, I found that the petitioner Math is
an old institution. During my tour I have seen the deity/institution as
well as the case land located at Tulasipur of Cuttack Town. The Temple and
the surrounding pucca houses of the institution are now standing in
dilapidated condition which require major repair/renovation and for that
purpose huge amount of money is required. The deity/institution has no
funds to meet the above expenses. The only way is open to the
deity/institution to sell some landed properties. The deity/institution
has some cultivable lands which are now under the possession of the the
institution. But the case land is now under the possession of the O.Ps
since long and the institution is not getting anything from the case land.
It will be very expensive on the part of the institution to evict the O.Ps
from the case land through litigations. Therefore, in my opinion it will be
beneficial for the deity/institution to sell the case land in order to meet
the above legal necessity of the deity/institution. The O.Ps No. 1 and 2
are now staying over in the case land with their family members after
constructing their house over it. The O.Ps are now ready and willing to
purchase the case land at the reasonable rate fixed by this Court. If the
case lands are sold away and the sale proceeds deposited in any
Nationalised Bank under Long Term Fixed deposit scheme, the
deity/institution will definitely get substantial income annually in safe
of interest. Hence, I feel that it is necessary to sell away the case land
for the above legal necessity which is beneficial for the
deity/institution.
6. It is seen from the order at Paragraph 5 that prior to the
consideration of the matter, the Endowment Commissioner had given a public
notice and that, "In spite of publication of notice, no objection has been
received from any corner."
7. The Endowment Commissioner having taken note of the fact that the
circle rate available could be less than the actual market price, passed
the order for auctioning the property with upset price at Rs. 5 crores per
acre for the first item, Rs. 4 crores per acre for the second item and Rs.
3 crores per acre for the third item.
8. It is seen from the order passed by the Endowment Commissioner that
even if the property is put to auction, it is likely to ensue a long drawn
litigation in the matter of eviction of the present occupants.
9. Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel, on instruction and
after referring to the records, submits that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have
been in occupation of the property since 1956.
10. The offer originally made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the High
Court was for Rs. 30 Lakhs, which was enhanced to Rs. 45 Lakhs and it was
on Rs.45 Lakhs, the compromise was entered into and the appeal was disposed
of by the High Court by the impugned Judgment in 2008.
11. When the appeal was pending before this Court, by way of an
application filed in July, 2015, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 offered an amount
of Rs.80 Lakhs, whereas the intervenor had offered an amount of Rs.1.68
crores.
12. Having regard to the background of the litigation, having regard to
the dire necessity for the Deity to dispose of the property, having regard
to the fact that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been in occupation of the
property since 1956 and that they have constructed their houses in the
property, we are of the view that it is in the interest of all concerned to
put a quietus to the litigations between the State and Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 of the sale of the property under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu
Religious Endowment Act.
13. After considering the suggestions made from all quarters and having
regard to the offers made before this Court, having regard to the circle
rate and market rate and having regard to more than five decades of the
admitted occupancy by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we fix the rate at Rs. 2.75
crores for the entire property now occupied by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
14. This amount shall be deposited by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a
period of three months from today. On such deposit, whatever rights
available to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of property under Section 19
of the Act shall be transferred to them.
15. In view of the above observations and directions, this civil appeal
is disposed of with no order as to costs.
16. We make it clear that this Judgment is passed in the peculiar
background of the case we have extracted above and the same shall not be
treated as a precedent.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
March 02, 2016.
