K. ARJUN DASversusCOMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS.

                          [2019] 13 S.C.R. 307                            307


                          K. ARJUN DAS                                    A
                                  v.
    COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS, ORISSA & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9576 of 2010)
                       SEPTEMBER 17, 2019                                 B
 [N. V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
                AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
      Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, 1951:
       s. 19 – Alienation of immovable Trust property – Application       C
u/s. 19 on behalf of Diety by fit person seeking permission to sell
the property belonging to the Diety, admeasuring 4 acres 255
decimals – Appellant also filed affidavit claiming to be in possession
of the property as a tenant for last 40 years – In enquiry report,
Inspector Endowments assessed the value of the land in the range
                                                                          D
of 5 to 5.50 lakhs per acre and found that if sale of the property
were sanctioned, it would be beneficial for the institution –
Commissioner Endowments accorded permission to sell the property
fixing Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as upset price and offered first choice
to purchase to the appellant-tenant – After lapse of statutory period
to file appeal against the order of the Commissioner, sale deeds          E
were executed in favour of the appellants in respect of land
admeasuring 2 acres 19 decimals – In a pending appeal against
the order of the Commissioner and suo motu proceeding initiated by
the State Government, intervention applications were filed by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 offering to buy a piece of the suit land
                                                                          F
admeasuring 619 decimals at the rate of Rs. 30 lakhs per acre –
The intervention application was rejected by the State Government
– Order of State Government challenged in writ petition by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 taking the ground that the appellant was
not a tenant and that they were willing to offer the rate of Rs. 25
lakhs per acre – Writ petition dismissed by Single Judge of High          G
Court – Letters Patent Appeal was allowed by Division Bench of
High Court holding that there was no evidence to show that the
appellant was tenant and directed the Commissioner, Endowments
to put the total land for public auction at the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs pr
                                                                          H
                                 307
308            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     acre – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held : Division Bench of High
      Court has committed a manifest error of law and of facts in setting
      aside concurrent findings and hence is legally not sustainable –
      The lucrative offer made by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 appears to be
      only to frustrate the action of respondent-authority – The procedure
      opted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot be countenanced to nullify
B
      the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the appellant after
      due compliance as mandated by law under the Act.
            Allowing the appeal, the Court
            HELD : 1. The State of Orissa with its legislative
C     competence introduced the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments
      Act, 1951 with an object to provide better administration and
      governance of Hindu public religious institutions and endowments
      in the State of Orissa. [Para 25] [317-B-C]
             2. Keeping in view the paramount object of good
D     governance, if any decision is taken to alienate the immovable
      trust property, an inbuilt mechanism has been provided u/s. 19
      with a non obstante clause having overriding effect contained in
      any law to restrict the alienation of any immovably trust property
      belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious
      institution, unless sanctioned by the Commissioner as being
E     necessary or beneficial to the institution with a further restriction
      that no such transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so
      sanctioned. In the instant case, the Commissioner Endowments
      taking note of the affidavits filed by the respective parties and
      also the fact that the appellant is the tenant and in possession
F     over the subject land since last 40 years paying bhag(share) to
      the deity and has shown his inclination to purchase the subject
      land at a price which the Commissioner Endowments may fix and
      took note of the report of Inspector Endowments dated 27th April,
      2002 who has admitted in his report that the subject land is lying
      barren and no income is derived to the institution and is not in
G     cultivable position. On the contrary, the institution used to bear
      the expenditure towards payment of land revenue out of the
      institution fund, which is an extra burden to the institution and
      taking note of the market value as proposed by the Inspector
      Endowments based on the sale statistics relating to the year 2000-
H
   K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                        309
                    ORISSA & ORS.

2001 of Rs. 5.50 lakhs per acre and 4 years had rolled thereafter,    A
with due diligence, granted permission for sale of the subject
land with pragmatic approach by fixing the price of Rs. 10 lakhs
per acre and the appellant being in possession of the land was
given the first choice to purchase the subject land failing which
it may be put to public auction. [Paras 26 and 29] [319-F-G;
                                                                      B
320-D-G]
       3. It is correct that deity being a perpetual minor and
ultimately the State authority is under an obligation to protect
the interest of the minor and the deity cannot be divested of any
title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory
provisions leaving aside the mandate of the Act, 1951. But that       C
is always to be examined keeping in view the parameters as
mandated under the law. [Para 30] [320-G; 321-A-B]
      4. The Division Bench of the High Court has committed a
manifest error in not appreciating the concurrent finding noticed
by the Single Bench of the High Court and has proceeded on a          D
tangent, brushing aside the factual foundation on a price of hand
offered by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 who were merely intervenors
in the proceedings standing on the fence having no stakes on
their shoulders, came forward just to nullify the registered sale
deed executed in favour of the appellant by adopting the indirect     E
method in making a public offer. To the contrary, if there was any
error in the decision making process adopted by the respondents,
the remedy available with the intervenors (respondent nos. 4
and 5) was to question the registered sale deed in the appropriate
proceedings available under the law which certainly must have
been appeared to be more cumbersome and the easy walkover             F
was to attack the procedure adopted by the competent authority
by making a stray offer with no liability to discharge. Such a
procedure cannot be countenanced to nullify the registered sale
deed executed in favour of the appellant after due compliance
and mandated by law under Act, 1951. [Para 31] [321-B-E]              G
      5. It has not been controverted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5
that they themselves have purchased an adjoining piece of land
from private owners for a consideration of Rs. 6.50 lakhs per
acre on 27th December, 2006 in the given circumstances, the so
                                                                      H
310            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     called lucrative offer made by them appears to be only to frustrate
      the action of the respondent authority which was easily accessible
      to them under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article
      226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 32] [321-E]
            6. The factual statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 4
B     and 5 making an offer to pay Rs. 75 lakhs per acre as on today,
      may be taken into consideration by the respondent-authorities
      while taking any future action in reference to the remaining land
      admeasuring 2 acres 206 decimals in question, if any decision is
      being taken for its alienation if so required. [Para 34] [322-B-C]
C           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9576
      of 2010.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 08.04.2009 of the High Court
      of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Appeal No. 53 of 2008.
            With
D
            Civil Appeal No. 9577 of 2010.
            Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., Pranab Kumar Mullick, Rajiv S. Roy,
      Mrs. Soma Mullick, Abhijit S. Roy, A. Chatterjee, Mrs. Jayashree Saha,
      Tarun Gupta, Sebat Kumar Dewria, Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Satya
      Narain, Shibashish Misra, Advs. for the appearing parties.
E
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            RASTOGI, J.
             1. These appeals arise from the judgment dated 8th April, 2009
      passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court directing the
F     Commissioner Endowments to put the subject land in question by fixing
      the upset price afresh and sell the property by public auction with the
      liberty to the parties to participate and if the highest bid goes less than
      Rs. 25 lakhs per acre, respondent nos. 4 & 5(appellants in the writ
      appeals) shall be responsible to purchase the property @ Rs. 25 lakhs
G     per acre and in the event of non-deposit, the District Authority shall
      recover the said amount as a land revenue.
              2. The brief facts culled out and relevant for the purpose are that
      the fit person, namely, Sunaram Sabat on behalf of the deity Sri Rama

H
    K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                                    311
              ORISSA & ORS. [RASTOGI, J.]

Laxman Sita Swamy Bije at P.O. Luchapada, District Ganjam filed an                 A
application under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments
Act, 1951(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act, 1951”) seeking
permission for sale of Ac. 4.255 decimals of land belong to the deity
indicated in the application and referred to by the Commissioner
Endowments, Orissa, Bhubaneshwar in its order dated 22nd February,
                                                                                   B
2005.
        3. It was pleaded that the subject land in reference to which the
permission is being sought was managed by him and is recorded in the
name of the deity under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, 1951 and it is lying
barren and no income is being derived by the institution and is in possession
of the appellant (K. Arjun Das, s/o K. Pitabas Das) for a long time and            C
the income derived from it is very scanty. According to him, the market
value of the subject land may be about Rs. 2 lakhs per acre and in case
it is sold, the sale proceeds may be kept in fixed deposit account and it
will fetch more than the present income and, therefore, requested that
the proposed sale is, therefore necessary and beneficial in the interest of        D
the deity.
       4. After publication of the notice, opposite party entered their
appearance and also filed their written response. The Commissioner
Endowments directed Inspector, Endowments to make enquiry and submit
report. Pursuant thereto, the Inspector, Endowments submitted his report           E
dated 27th April, 2002 indicating that after making local visit to the subject
land, he found the same as lying fallow and no income is generated for
the institution and in his view it will be beneficial for the institution if the
sanction would be accorded for the proposed sale. He further opined
that the value of the land would be in the range of Rs. 5 to 5.50 lakh per
acre and this has been assessed by the Officer after visit to the office of        F
Sub-Registrar and after obtaining details of the sale deeds of the area.
       5. The appellant in the instant proceedings, also filed affidavit
before the Commissioner Endowments that he is in possession of the
subject property as a tenant for the last 40 years and paying bhag(share)
of the crop to the deity. In support of the claim of tenancy and paying            G
bhag(share) notices of the Inspector Endowments for deposit of bhag,
various receipts of payment of bhag were produced before the
Commissioner Endowments which has been placed on record in the
instant Civil Appeal No. 9576/2010 at pages (32-40).
                                                                                   H
312             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A            6. Taking note of the fact that application was filed in the year
      2001, the Inspector Endowments submitted his report on 27th April, 2002
      relying on the sale statistics of the year 2000 and 2001 and four years
      have been rolled by and there is always a considerable increase in the
      market value of the land day by day noticing the cumulative effect of the
      facts into consideration, the Commissioner Endowments with due
B
      diligence fixed Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as upset price and accorded
      permission for sale. The appellant being in possession of the subject
      land, the Commissioner Endowments considered it appropriate to offer
      first choice to purchase subject land at the rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre
      and in case he fails to purchase, the subject land be put to public auction
C     fixing Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as the upset price and such auction be
      conducted in the presence of Inspector Endowments and while disposing
      of the application vide order dated 22nd February, 2005, apart from
      execution of the sale deed, the order to be published in the religious
      institution and in a conspicuous place of the locality where the property
      is situated as per rule 4 sub-rule (2) of clauses (1) and (b) of the Orissa
D
      Hindu Religious Endowments Rules, 1959(hereinafter being referred to
      as “Rules 1959”).
             7. Indisputedly, the order of the Commissioner Endowments dated
      22nd February, 2005 was communicated to the State Government and
      also published in the manner prescribed in compliance of sub-section (3)
E     of Section 19 of the Act, 1951.
             8. Under the scheme of the Act, 1951, the order passed by the
      Commissioner Endowments is appealable by the trustee or any person
      taking interest to the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section
      19 of the Act subject to the limitation provided therein. At the same
F     time, the State Government can also exercise its inherent power if it
      appears to the State Government that alienation is either not necessary
      or beneficial to the institution or the consideration fixed in respect of the
      transfer by exchange, sale, mortgage or lease of the property is
      inadequate, invoking sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act, 1951 within
G     the statutory period of 90 days of the receipt of the order communicated
      under sub-section (3) of the date of publication of the order whichever is
      later.
          9. Since the limitation of filing appeal against the order of
      Commissioner Endowments expired in terms of sub-section (4) of Section
H
    K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                                 313
              ORISSA & ORS. [RASTOGI, J.]

19 of the Act on 6th May, 2005, the sale deeds were executed and                A
registered in favour of the appellant in respect of the land admeasuring
Ac. 2.019 decimals on payment of Rs. 20.19 lakhs on 2nd August, 2005
and 30th August, 2005 respectively.
       10. Respondent no. 8(Chinmaya Mohapatra) being a person
interested filed appeal before the State Government on 20th September,          B
2005 against the order of the Commissioner Endowments dated 22nd
February, 2005 and simultaneously the State Government also suo motu
initiated the proceedings to revisit the procedure adopted by the
Commissioner Endowments under sub-section (5) of Section 19 and in
the pending proceedings, respondent nos. 4 and 5(Lokesh Patro and
Debendranath Patro) filed their intervention application, inter alia, stating   C
that they are interested in a piece of land ad-measuring Ac. 0.619 decimals
for which they are prepared to pay Rs. 30 lakhs per acre.
       11. The State Government after taking note of the rival claims
and noticing that it was time barred claim of the intervenors and also the
fact that the sale deed for Ac. 2.019 decimals of land has been executed        D
by a registered deed on 2 nd August, 2005 and 30 th August, 2005
respectively and took note of the report of the Inspector Endowments
who also opined that land could fetch Rs. 5.50 lakhs per acre in the year
2002 and the Commissioner Endowments has granted permission to sell
the land in the year 2005 at the rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre with             E
preferential right to the appellant. As regards the intervention application
filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, it was alleged that they never pleaded
before the Commissioner Endowments despite publication nor filed any
appeal confirmed the order of the Commissioner Endowments vide its
order dated 30th May, 2006. However, further directed that with regard
to the remaining Ac. 2.206 decimals of land, the same may be sold by            F
public auction after due publicity in accordance with law.
      12. It is informed to this Court that despite order of the State
Government dated 30th May, 2006, no public auction for the remaining
Ac. 2.206 decimals of land has so far been held by the authority as yet.
                                                                                G
       13. That order of the State Government dated 30th May, 2006
came to be challenged by respondent nos. 4 and 5 who were intervenors
in the proceedings in a writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, inter alia, on the ground that the present appellant

                                                                                H
314             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     was not the tenant and they were willing to offer the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs
      per acre for the subject land.
             14. The Single Judge of the High Court after noticing the facts of
      the case observed that the land ad-measuring Ac. 2.019 decimals has
      been sold in February, 2005 by a registered sale deed and is no more
B     available for public auction and there is no procedural defect in the decision
      making process pointed out by the writ petitioners and the action being
      in conformity with the provisions of the Act, 1951 dismissed the writ
      petition vide order dated 25th February, 2008 with a liberty to go ahead
      for public auction of the remaining land ad-measuring Ac. 2.206 decimals
      after adopting the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1951.
C
             15. The order of the Single Judge came to be challenged by
      respondent nos. 4 & 5 in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division
      Bench of the High Court which came to be allowed under the judgment
      impugned dated 8th April, 2009 on the premise that there was no evidence
      to show that the appellant was tenant and there was no basis to fix the
D     price at Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and accordingly directed the Commissioner
      Endowments to put the total land as prayed for public auction at the rate
      of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre which was offered by respondent nos. 4 and 5
      and in case the property fails to fetch Rs. 25 lakhs per acre, respondent
      nos. 4 & 5(original writ petitioners) shall be responsible to purchase the
E     property @ Rs. 25 lakhs per acre and in the event of non-deposit, the
      District Collector, Ganjam shall recover the said amount as a land revenue
      which is a subject matter of challenge in the appeals before us at the
      instance of the persons in whose favour the sale deed was executed and
      registered in reference to land ad-measuring Ac. 2.019 decimals dated
      2nd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 respectively and also by the
F     applicants who later purchased a piece of land from the present appellant
      in Civil Appeal No. 9576 of 2010 claiming to be the bonafide purchaser,
      and their rights are being infringed by the judgment of Division Bench
      impugned dated 8th April, 2009.
            16. Learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vijay Hansaria,
G     submits that it was an admitted case from the day one when the
      application was filed on behalf of the deity before the Commissioner
      Endowments seeking permission under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of
      the Act, 1951 indicating that the present appellant is in possession of the

H
    K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                               315
              ORISSA & ORS. [RASTOGI, J.]

subject land in question as tenant and this fact was nowhere questioned       A
either before the Commissioner Endowments or in the suo motu
proceedings initiated by the State Government in exercise of sub-section
(5) of Section 19 of Act, 1951 and in support of his status, he has placed
the receipts on record before the authority to establish that he was the
tenant and has paid bhag(share) for sufficient long time and paying
                                                                              B
bhag(share) was also recorded by the Inspector Endowments in his report
dated 27th April, 2002 and to support it further, the receipts have been
placed on record at pages 32-40 in Civil Appeal No. 9576 of 2010 to
which no counter has been filed in rebuttal.
       17. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner Endowments
after holding enquiry under sub-section(1) of Section 19 of the Act, 1951     C
of which a detailed reference has been made fixed a valuation at the
rate of Rs. 10 lakhs per care as it reveals from its order dated 22nd
February, 2005. That apart, there was a concealment on the part of
respondent nos. 4 & 5 that they have purchased an adjoining piece of
land from the private land owner for a consideration of Rs. 6.50 lakhs        D
per acre by registered sale deed dated 27th December, 2006. Still they
intervened in the instant proceedings to purchase a piece of land extending
an area of Ac. 0.0619 decimals and not the total subject land which was
purchased by the appellant ad-measuring Ac. 2.019 decimals at the rate
of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre as fixed by the Commissioner Endowments
after holding inquiry under the Act, 1951.                                    E

        18. Learned counsel submits that in the given facts and
circumstances, the blanket order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court without appraisal of the evidence on record to put the total
land to public auction and nullifying the registered sale deed executed by
the competent authority in favour of the appellant dated 2nd August,          F
2005 and 30th August, 2005 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is not legally sustainable in law.
       19. Learned counsel submits that it was not the case of the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 at any stage that the sale deed has been registered
either in contravention of law or being obtained by fraud. In absence         G
thereof, nullifying their registered sale deed under the supervisory
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India was not sustainable and deserves to be interfered by this Court.

                                                                              H
316            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A            20. Learned counsel in Civil Appeal No. 9577 of 2010 supported
      the submission made by the appellants and in addition further submits
      that they are the bonafide purchasers and both of them have purchased
      the piece of land by a registered sale deed dated 24th June, 2006 and 6th
      May, 2008 respectively and at least the land which they have purchased
      by the registered sale deed after payment of due consideration could not
B
      be nullified by the High Court under the impugned judgment and needs
      to be interfered with by this Court.
             21. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 and 5 who
      have primarily opposed the appeals, while supporting the judgment of
      the Division Bench further submits that from the day one they had made
C     an offer to purchase the subject land at the rate of Rs. 25 lakhs per acre
      but no one has listened to their request and this fact cannot be ruled out
      that the deity being a perpetual minor and a person incapable to nullify
      the holdings and ultimately the state authorities are under obligation to
      watch the interest of such minor/disabled persons. The deity cannot be
D     divested of any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the
      statutory provisions and this fact cannot be ruled out that the property
      belonging to the deity must fetch the best possible price which the
      respondents are willing to pay for the subject land in question belonging
      to the deity which alone will serve the purpose in upholding the best
      interest of the deity and whose interest is to be awarded by the manager/
E     trustee/pujari and ultimately by the State Government under the provisions
      of the Act, 1951 and that being the paramount consideration which has
      been noticed by the Division Bench under the impugned judgment needs
      no further interference.
              22. Learned counsel during the course of arguments has informed
F     to this Court that if the total land in question ad-measuring Ac. 4.255
      decimals of Luchapada, District Ganjam Khata No. 181 and 381 of which
      a description has been made by the Commissioner Endowments, Orissa
      in its order dated 22nd February, 2005 is taken into consideration, he has
      instructions to inform to this Court that his client (respondent nos. 4 and
G     5) are ready to pay a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs per acre but no offer was
      made for the remaining land of Ac. 2.206 decimals which has been
      directed by the State Government to put to public auction vide order
      dated 22nd February, 2005.


H
    K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                                317
              ORISSA & ORS. [RASTOGI, J.]

       23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their        A
assistance perused the material available on record.
       24. At the outset, it may be noticed that the present appellant is
only concerned in respect of the land ad-measuring Ac. 2.019 decimals
in reference to which the sale deed was executed and registered in his
favour on 2nd August, 2005 and 30th August, 2005 respectively.                 B
       25. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it will be apposite to
take note of the scheme of the Act, 1951. The State of Orissa with its
legislative competence introduced the Act, 1951 with an object to provide
better administration and governance of Hindu public religious institutions
and endowments in the State of Orissa. The extract of the Section 19           C
relevant for the purpose is reproduced as under:-
      “Section 19 - Alienation of immovable trust property
      (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
      being in force no transfer by exchange, sale or mortgage and no
      lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property          D
      belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious
      institution, shall be made unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner
      as being necessary or beneficial to the institution and no such
      transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so sanctioned.
      [Explanation-A lease for a term not exceeding five years but with        E
      a condition of renewal permitting continuance of the lease beyond
      five years shall, for the purposes of this sub-section, be deemed
      to be a lease for a term exceeding five years.
          (1-a) The fact of execution of a lease deed with a condition
          for renewal or renewal of such a deed shall be communicated          F
          to the Commissioner by the Trustee not later than fifteen days
          from the date of execution.
          (1-b) After expiry of the term of the lease the lessee shall
          deliver possession of the leasehold land to the lessor, failing
          which, the Commissioner may take action in accordance with           G
          the provision of Section 68:
          Provided that all structures, permanent or temporary, if any,
          constructed plants and machineries and other things installed

                                                                               H
318      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A        and kept on the leasehold land, which is a subject-matter of a
         lease executed after commencement of the Orissa Hindu
         Religious Endowments (Amendment) Act 22 of 1989 by the
         lessee, his servants or agents, shall become the property of the
         religious institution unless removed from the land within such
         period, as may be prescribed, after expiry of the term of lease,
B
         in respect of which the Commissioner shall take action under
         the provision of Section 68.
         (1-c) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to Sub-
         section (1-b), no property belonging to a person other than the
         lessee shall be subjected to confiscation under the said proviso,
C        unless such person fails to remove his property within a period
         of thirty days from the date of publication of a notice which
         shall be issued by the Trustee within such period as may be
         prescribed after the expiry of the term of lease:
         Provided that any person whose property is affected under
D        Sub- section (1-c), may file an application to the Commissioner
         claiming the property whose decision shall, subject to the
         decision of the Civil Court, be final.]
      (2) In according such sanction, the Commissioner may declare it
      to be subject to such conditions and directions as he may deem
E     necessary regarding the utilization of the amount raised by the
      transaction, the investment thereof and in the case of a mortgage,
      regarding the discharge of the same within a reasonable period,
      (3) A copy of the order made by the Commissioner under this
      section shall be communicated to the State Government and to
F     the trustee and shall be published in such manner as may be
      prescribed.
      [(4) The trustee may, within thirty days from the date of receipt
      of a copy of the order and any person having interest may, within
      thirty days from the date of publication of the order, appeal to the
G     State Government to modify the order or set it aside:
      Provided that appeals from the orders communicated or published
      prior to the date of commencement of the Orissa Hindu Religious
      Endowment (Amendment) Act, 1980 shall lie within a period of

H
    K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                                  319
              ORISSA & ORS. [RASTOGI, J.]

       three months from the date of communication or, as the case may           A
       be, publication of the order or within a period of thirty days from
       the commencement of the said Act whichever period expires
       earlier.
       (5) In any case where appeal has not been made to the State
       Government it appears to the State Government [that the alienation        B
       is not necessary or beneficial to the institution, or] that the
       consideration fixed in respect of the transfer by exchange, sale,
       mortgage or lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable
       property is inadequate, they may, within ninety days from the date
       of the receipt of the order communicated to them under Sub-
       section (3) or the date of the publication of the order whichever         C
       date is later, call for the record of the case from the Commissioner
       and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned,
       revise the order of the Commissioner :
       Provided that in any case where the transfer has not been effected
       in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner under Sub-section           D
       (1), the State Government may exercise the aforesaid power even
       after the expiry of ninety days from the date of such order.
       (6) The State Government may, by order, stay execution of the
       deed of transfer in respect of the immovable property which form
       the subject-matter of an appeal or revision till the disposal of the      E
       appeal, or as the case may be, the revision.
       (7) The order of the Commissioner made under this section shall,
       subject to orders, if any, passed in an appeal or revision, be final.]”
       26. Keeping in view the paramount object of good governance, if           F
any decision is taken to alienate the immovable trust property, an inbuilt
mechanism has been provided with a non obstante clause having
overriding effect contained in any law to restrict the alienation of any
immovably trust property belonging to, or given or endowed for the
purpose of, any religious institution, unless sanctioned by the Commissioner
as being necessary or beneficial to the institution with a further restriction   G
that no such transfer shall be valid or operative unless it is so sanctioned.
      27. After due compliance of the mandate of law as envisaged
under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of Act, 1951 while granting sanction,

                                                                                 H
320             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A     the requirement as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 19 has to
      be properly taken care of in reference to the utilisation of funds and
      further mandating under sub-section(3) that copy of the order of the
      Commissioner shall be communicated to the State Government and to
      the trustee and shall be published in such a manner as may be prescribed.
B            28. After the order of the Commissioner is communicated to the
      State Government and published in the manner as may be prescribed,
      the trustee or any person if interested may prefer an appeal, if so desired,
      under sub-section (4) to the State Government. At the same time, the
      State Government may exercise its inherent power suo motu as provided
      under sub-section (5) of the Act with the period of limitation provided
C     therein and Order of the Commissioner Endowments under sub-section
      (6) shall be final subject to orders, if any, passed in appeal or revision as
      referred to sub-section (7) of the Act.
             29. In the instant case, the Commissioner Endowments taking
      note of the affidavits filed by the respective parties and also the fact that
D     the appellant is the tenant and in possession over the subject land since
      last 40 years paying bhag(share) to the deity and has shown his inclination
      to purchase the subject land at a price which the Commissioner
      Endowments may fix and took note of the report of Inspector
      Endowments dated 27th April, 2002 who has admitted in his report that
E     the subject land is lying barren and no income is derived to the institution
      and is not in cultivable position. On the contrary, the institution used to
      bear the expenditure towards payment of land revenue out of the institution
      fund, which is an extra burden to the institution and taking note of the
      market value as proposed by the Inspector Endowments based on the
      sale statistics relating to the year 2000-2001 of Rs. 5.50 lakhs per acre
F     and 4 years had rolled thereafter, with due diligence, granted permission
      for sale of the subject land with pragmatic approach by fixing the price
      of Rs. 10 lakhs per acre and the appellant being in possession of the land
      was given the first choice to purchase the subject land failing which it
      may be put to public auction under its order dated 22nd February, 2005.
G            30. It reveals from the record that the Division Bench of the High
      Court has initially proceeded on the basic principles that deity being a
      perpetual minor and ultimately the State authority is under an obligation
      to protect the interest of the minor and the deity cannot be divested of

H
    K. ARJUN DAS v. COMMISSIONER OF ENDOWMENTS,                               321
              ORISSA & ORS. [RASTOGI, J.]

any title or rights of immovable property in violation of the statutory       A
provisions leaving aside the mandate of the Act, 1951. There could not
be any two views possible, so far it has to protect the rights of the deity
is concerned, the object is indeed laudable and based on public policy
which each one has to uphold but that is always to be examined keeping
in view the parameters as mandated under the law.
                                                                              B
       31. The plain reading of the judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court shows that it has committed a manifest error in not
appreciating the concurrent finding noticed by the Single Bench of the
High Court and has proceeded on a tangent, brushing aside the factual
foundation on a price of hand offered by respondent nos. 4 & 5 who
were merely intervenors in the proceedings standing on the fence having       C
no stakes on their shoulders, came forward just to nullify the registered
sale deed executed in favour of the appellant by adopting the indirect
method in making a public offer. To the contrary, if there was any error
in the decision making process adopted by the respondents, the remedy
available with the intervenors respondent nos. 4 and 5 was to question        D
the registered sale deed in the appropriate proceedings available under
the law which certainly must have been appeared to be more cumbersome
and the easy walkover was to attack the procedure adopted by the
competent authority by making a stray offer with no liability to discharge,
such a procedure cannot be countenanced to nullify the registered sale
deed executed in favour of the appellant after due compliance and             E
mandated by law under Act, 1951.
       32. It has not been controverted by the respondent nos. 4 and 5
that they themselves have purchased an adjoining piece of land from
private owners for a consideration of Rs. 6.50 lakhs per acre on 27th
December, 2006 in the given circumstances, the so called lucrative offer      F
made by them appears to be only to frustrate the action of the respondent
authority which was easily accessible to them under the writ jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
       33. In our considered view, the Division Bench of the High Court
has committed a manifest error of law and facts in setting aside the          G
concurrent finding noticed by the Single Judge of the High Court in the
impugned judgment which, in our considered view, on this score is not
legally sustainable in law.

                                                                              H
322             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2019] 13 S.C.R.


A            34. Before parting, we would like to observe that the learned
      counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has made an offer that his client
      is ready to pay Rs. 75 lakhs per acre as on today but his offer was for
      the total land of Ac. 4.255 decimals including the subject land Ac. 2.019
      decimals to which the sale deed has been executed and registered in
      favour of the appellant has to be parted with. This factual statement
B
      recorded by us is to be noticed and may be taken into consideration by
      the respondents while taking any future action in reference to the
      remaining land Ac. 2.206 decimals in question, if any decision is being
      taken for its alienation if so required, it goes without saying, after due
      compliance, as mandated under the law.
C            35. The appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The
      judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 8th April, 2009
      is hereby set aside with the observations(supra). No costs.
             36. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

D
      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                         Appeals allowed.




E




F




G




H