Holding

The notification under section 3‑A validly vested the estate of Lord Jagannath in the State; a trust‑estate declaration does not provide permanent immunity from later vesting notifications.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether a notification issued on 18 March 1974 under section 3-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, validly vested the estate of Lord Jagannath in the State of Orissa despite an earlier declaration of the estate as a "trust estate" under Chapter II‑A. The petitioners argued that the trust‑estate declaration permanently excluded the estate from the Act, even after the repeal of Chapter II‑A, and that the later notification was ultra vires. The Court held that section 13‑1 only saves a trust estate from vesting notifications already issued and does not confer perpetual immunity; subsequent notifications under section 3 or 3‑A can still vest such estates. It further observed that sections 7‑A, 8‑A, 8‑D and 8‑E expressly bring trust estates within the Act’s purview. Consequently, the 1974 notification was deemed valid and the estate was vested in the State. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the 1974 notification under section 3‑A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, is ultra vires in view of the earlier declaration of Lord Jagannath's estate as a trust estate.
Interpretation of section 13‑1 (13‑I) regarding the effect of a trust‑estate declaration on vesting notifications.
Whether the repeal of Chapter II‑A affects the status of the estate as a trust estate.
Whether provisions of sections 7‑A, 8‑A, 8‑D and 8‑E indicate that trust estates remain within the scope of the Act.

Legislation cited

Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951s. 13-1, s. 13-G, s. 13-K, s. 3, s. 3-A, s. 7-A, s. 8-A, s. 8-D, s. 8-E
Orissa General Clauses Acts. 5
Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955

Subjects

trust estateland reformvested rightsnotificationstatutory interpretationrepeal of legislationreligious trustpublic trustOrissa law

Judgment

LORD JAGANNATH THROUGH JAGANNATH SINARI
A
NARASINGH DAS MAHAPATRA SRIDHAR PANDA ETC.
v..
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

B .
NOVEMBER 2, 1988

[K.N. SINGH AND LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.]
-
Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951: .sections 3A, 7A, 8D, 8E, 13 I
and 13G-Estate of Lord Jagannath-Whether has vested in the State of
Orissa.
c Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 was enacted to abolish all the
rights in the land of intermediaries between the raiyats and the State of
Orissa by whatever name known and for vesting the saine in the State.
Section. 3 anthorises the State Government to declare by a notification
any estate specified therein to have passed to and become vested in the
D State, i.e., the intermediary concerned is divested of the notified
interests and becomes entitled to compensation. By an amendment
s. 3-A was included in the Act permitting the State Government to issue
a single notification in respect of a class or classes of intermediaries in
the whole or a part of the State. By a further amendment in 1963
Chapter II-A was inserted in the Act making special provisions for
E public trusts. Clause (e) of s.13-A described "trust-estate". Provisions
were made in Chapter II-A for entertaining claims and determining the
nature of the estates claimed to be trust estates and announcing the
decision by notification. The effect of such a determination was, as
mentioned ins. 13-1(1), to save the estate from vesting under a notifica-
tion issued nuder s. 3 or 3-A.
F
A notification under s. 3 of the Act was issued in respect of the
estate of Lord Jagannath on 27-4-1963, and on the same date another
notification under s. 13-G, Chapter II-A followed declaring the estate as
"trust estate": The consequence was the diety was not divested of the
estate. In 1970 Chapter II-A was repealed. By insertion of clause (oo) in
G s. 2 in 1974 the said estate continued tci be "trust estate." On 18.3.1974
a notification under s. 3-A was issued declaring the estate of the diety to
have vested iit the State.

A writ petition was filed In the High Court challenging the validity
of the said fiotification; which was dismissed. · ·
H
732
~§:~}~:'15-. "~
···i;f
•(

; LORD JAGANNATH v. STATE OF ORISSA [SHARMA, J.l 733
.J
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant it was .A
contended that as a result of the decision under chapter II-A declaring ;j
Lord·Jagannath's estate a "trust estate" the same must be deemed to
have been excluded from the scope of the Act and this decision became
final and continued to remain effective even after the repeal of Chapter
II-A. The right which was acquired under s. 13-1 cannot disappear on
the repeal of Chapter II-A as the estate in question went completely out B
of the ambit of the Act. The intention of the Legislature to include Lord
Jagannath's estate within the expression ~'trust estate" in cl. (oo) ins. 2
by the Amending Act 1974 was clearly to spare the said estate perma-
nently from the mischief of the Act.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
c
HELD: 1. There is no infirmity in the notification dated
111.3.1974 issued under s. 3-A of the Act. [737EJ

2. It is manifest from the language of s. 13-1 that it saves a "trust
estate" so declared under s. 13-G from the operation of a notification D
issued under s. 3 or 3-A, but does not extend the benefit any further.
The provisions do not confer protection from the Act itself and cannot
be interpreted to clothe it with a permanent immunity from being ves-
ted by a later notification issued under the Act. [737A-BJ

3. Sections 7-A, 8-A, 8-D and 8-E of the Act include special provi- E
sions for a trust estate and unmistakably indicate that "trust estates"
are within the purview of the Act. The benefit they receive from a
declaration under s. 13-G is limited and referable only to a vesting
notification issued earlier. [737Dl

CIVIL APPELLATE JUJl!SDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3177 F
of1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.2.81 of the Orissa High
Court in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 233 of 1977.
N.K. Das and A.P. Mohanty for the Appellant.
G.L. Sanghi, R.K. Mehta, Ms. Mona Mehta and J.R. Das for G
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHARMA, J. The question which arises in this appeal by special
leave from the decision of !he Orissa High Court in a writ case is H
734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A whether the "estate" of Lord Jagannath has vested in the State of
Oiissa as a result of the notification dated 18.3.1974 issued under
s. 3-A of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred
to as the Act) or the said notification is ultra vires and fit to be
quashed. ·

B 2. The writ petition in the High Court was filed by ·a number of
persons claiming to be Sevaks and worshippers of Lord Jagannath, the
presiding deity of the famous Jagannath tempi~. The management of
the temple and the properties including the intermediary interest is in
the hands of a trust which was imp1eaded as a respondent in the case.
Besides, the State of Orissa and Collector, Puri, the Administrator, ,
Jagannath temple, the Jagannath Committee were also made parties.
C They, however, do not support the writ petitioners and agree with the
State that the "estate" has vested under the impugned notification.

3. The Act was passed in 1952 for the purpose of abolishing all
the rights in land of intermediaries between the raiyats and the State of
)} Orissa by whatever name known and for vesting the same in the State.
Section 3 a_uthorises the State Government to declare by a notification
any estate specified therein to have passed to and become vested in the
State. The result of such a notification is dealt with ins. 5. In substance
the intermediary concerned is divested of the notified interests and
becomes entitled to compensation to be computed in t_he manner indi-
IE cated in the Act. By an amendment s. 3-A was included in the Act
permitting the State Gove.:Oment to issue a single notification in
respect of a class or classes of intermediaries in the whole or a part of
the State. By a further amendment in 1963 Chapter II-A was inserted.
in the Act, making special provisions for public trusts. Clause (e) of
s. 13-A described "trust estate" as an estate the whole of the net
F income whereof is dedicated exclusively to charitable or religious
purposes. Admittedly the estate belonging to Lord Jagannath is
included in the· expression "trust estate". Provisions were made in
Chapter II-A for entertaining claims and determining nature of the
estates claimed to be trust estates and" announcing the decision by
notification. The effect of such a determination was, as mentioned in
-G s. 13-I(l) to save the estate from vesting under a notification . issued
under s. 3 or 3-A.

4. A notification under s. 3 of the Act was issued in respect to
the estate of Lord Jagannath on 27.4.1963 and on the same date another
notification under Chapter II-A followed declaring the estate as trust
Ill estat~. Co~~9uently the deity was not divested of the_i:state. In _197~ _
"!":
~; ·+'.~:i~~~:.-\~~ifi
I
I LO~D JAGANNATH v. .STATE OF ORISSA (SHARMA, l.] 735'

Chapter II-A was repealed. In 1974 the Act was further amended and
"trust estate" which was not ·included in the definition section of the A
original Act was defined in clause (oo) in the following terms (exclud-
ing the Explanation which is not rele_vant for the present ca~e):

"(oo) 'trust estate' means an estate the whole of the net
.income whereof under any trust or other legal obligation B
has been dedicated ex.elusively to charitable or religious
purposes of a public nature without any reservation of
pecuniary benefit to any individual:

Provided that all estates belonging to the Temple of
Lord Jagannath at Puri within the meaning of the Shri
J agannath Temple Act, 1955 and all estates. declared to the C
•' trust estates by a competent authority under this Act prior
to the date of coming into force of the Orissa Estates
Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1970, shall be dee.med to be
trust estates."
D
On 18.3.1974 the impugned notification under s. 3-A, as quoted
below, was issued:

"The 18th March, 1974

S.R.O. No. 184/74-In exercise of the powers confer- E
red by sub-section (1) of section 3-A of the Orissa Estates
Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952), the State
Government do hereby declare that

(i) the intermediary interests of all intermediaries whose
estates have been declared as trust estates under Chapter F
II-A of the said Act;

(ii) -those in respect of which claims and references made
under the said chapter were pending on the date of com-
·-'
mencement of the Orissa Estates Abolition (Amendment)
' Act, 1970 (Orissa Act 33 of 1970); and G

(iii) the intermediary interests of all intermediaries in
respect of all estates other than those which have already
vested in the State have passed to and become vested in the
State free from all encumbrances.
H

',,
736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

(No. 13699-EA+ND-l/74-R)
A
By order of the Governor
S.M. Patnaik

Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government."

B In this background the writ application was filed in the High Court
challenging the notification. The High Court rejected the claim of the
petitioner and dismissed the writ application by the impugned
judgment.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a
<I result of the decision under Chapter II-A declaring Lord Jagannath's
estate a "trust estate" the same must be deemed to have been excluded· .
from the scope of the Act, and this result in the eye of law became final •
and cotinued to remain effective even after the repeal of Chapter II-A.
Reliance was placed on Section 5 of the Orissa General Clauses Act ,JI
and it was argued that the right which the petitioner acquired under
lJ Section 13-I as a result of the decision cannot disappear on the repeal
of this Chapter. The learned counsel proceeded to urge that as a result
of the said decision the estate in question went completely out of the
ambit of the Act and for this reason when in 1974 the Act was further
amended it was considered necessary to define "trust estate" in Sec-
tion 2 of the Act and to expressly include Lord Jagannath's estate
I
E within the expression with a view to set at rest any controversy in this
regard. According \o the learned counsel the intention of the legisla-
ture is clearly to permanently spare the petitioner's estate from the
mischief of the Act. In our view, the argument has no merit and must
be rejected.

F 6. It is true that an order was passed under s. 13-G declaring the
.petitioner's estate as a "trust est.ate" and furtther by the insertion of
clause (oo) in s. 2 the petitioner's estate continued to be a "trust
estate", but the question is as to what is the legal effect flowing from
such a declaration. This aspect is dealt within s. 13-1, which is quoted
as under (omitting sub-section (2) which is not relevant in the pr~sent
G context):

"13-I. Effect of orders passed under section 13-G: (1) All
estates declared under this Chapter to be trust estates by
the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be, shail be
deemed to have been excluded from the operation of.the
H vesting notification and never to have vested in the State in
pursuance thereof." (emphasis added)
LORD JAGANNATH v. STATE OF ORISSA [SHARMA, J.] 737

It is manifest from the language of the Section that it saves a "trust A
esta\e" so (l~cl~r~d 11nder ~. !3-G from the operation of a notification
issµeg \!Jlder s, 3 Of 3-f\., pµt !if?~S m:it qtend the benefit any further.
T\\e prnvisiqns do liq! QPnfer prptec\ion from the Act itself and cannot
, be jnt~rpreted to clo(he it witq a permanent immunity from being
vested by a later notification issued under the Act. Such an estate
B
could be vested in the State of Qrissa"by a subsequent notification was
made clear by clause (b) of s. 13-K which reads as follows:
'I.
"(a) ......... .

(b) nothing in this Chapter shall be deem et! to debar the
State Government from vesting any trust estate by the issue (::
of a notification under Section 3."

Sections 7-A, 8-A, 8-D and 8"E of the Act include special provisions for
a trust estate and unmistakably indicate that "trust estates" are within
the purview of the Act. The benefit they receive from a declaration
under s. 13-G is limited and referable only to a vesting notification D
issued earlier. There is, thus, no merit in the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the petitioner's estate could not be ves-
ted in the State by a notification jssµed sube.equently.

7. We accordingly hq!d th~! ther~ js no infirmity in the notific~
tion dated 18.3, l974 is~µe<! l1mlef s. }A of the Act. The appeal fails
and is dismissed pµ( if\ \!le cif2'!1)ls\~nces without costs.

A,P,J. Appeal di~miss~fl,

d.
,,.-,i_J