JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowments Opp. party No. 1) dated 9-4-1970, made u/s 25 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Orissa Act of 2 of 1952)(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") directing a requisition to be sent to the Collector of Puri for effecting delivery of possession of lands included in a lease hold granted in favour of the Petitioner by the ex. Mahant of Khaki Akhada Math, Puri. On receipt of the requisition of the Commissioner, the Collector of Puri (Opp. party No. 2) called upon the Petitioner to deliver possession of the property to opposite party No. 3, the interim trustee of the said Math. The Petitioner, therefore, has asked us to quash Annexure-4 (the order u/s 25) and Annexure-6 (the order of the Collector dated 5-8-1970) by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. On 25-1-1950, the Petitioner claims to have taken a permanent lease in respect of Ac. 1.610 of land in Kundheibenta Sahi in the town of Puri on a premium of Rs. 5,500/- and rentral of Rs. 100/- per annum. The land is claimed to have been recorded in the Settlement Record-of-Rights as Amrutmonohi and the predecessor-in-interest of opposite party No. 3, a mahant was the marfatdar thereof. The Petitioner claims that after the lease was taken, he obtained permission from the Municipality for construction and has raised a pucca residential building on the property and has improved the land generally. But when suo motu, action was taken u/s 25 of the Act, the Petitioner came with an application u/s 19 thereof for obtaining sanction. No action was taken in the suo motu, proceedings nor was the application u/s 19 of the Act filed by the Petitioner disposed of. While both these applications were pending before the Commissioner, the opposite party No. 3 applied again u/s 25 of the Act and opp. party No. 36 of 1969-70 was registered before the Commissioner On 9-4-1970, under Annexure-A the Commissioner arbitrarily held: It has been proved on behalf of the interim Trustee-Petitioner, and not denied by the opposite party, that the land in question had been leased by the previous hereditary trustee on 25-1-1950 without obtaining sanction from the Commissioner as contemplated u/s 19 of the Act. No doubt, the opposite party has been paying rent for the land and seems to have improved the sites to some extent. But that would not give him any authority to retain the land, particularly when the alienation is unlawful. So, the present proceeding u/s 25 is competent. Issue requisition to the Collector, Puri to effect delivery of possession of the lands in favour of the interim Trustee. The Petitioner who is the lessee has asked us to quash the said order and the consequential orders both of the Commissioner as will as the Collector. 3. Mr. Mohapatra for the Petitioner contends that: (1) the property in question being Amrutmonohi, THE Act has no application and the Commissioner had, therefore, no jurisdiction to make the order u/s 25 of the Act. It is contended, on the other hand, that Sri Jagannath Temple Act (Act 11 of 1955) is to apply. (2) the Petitioner has acquired right, title and interest in the property by continuous adverse possession for more than 12 years and as such the impugned, order could not be made. (3) the subsequent order made by the Commissioner on the application made by the Petitioner u/s 19 of the Act is also assailed as being an. order without any basis. The order is also labelled as arbitrary and clearly vitiated. 4. Contention No. 1 : There is no dispute that the property in question has been recorded as Amrutamanohi : The Record-of-rights of the Provincial Settlement (1899) has been produced in support of the said allegation (vide Annexure-l). Reliance is also placed on the order of the Tribunal under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act dated 21-12-1967 (Annexure-8 A). Miscellaneous Case No. 2874 of 1967 was registered on a reference made by the Collector under Chapter II-A of the Estates Abolition Act and the Tribunal Judge recorded the following finding: As seen from the particulars furnished by the Collector, the estate stands recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath and is managed by a Math. I am satisfied that the estate is a trust eastate and hereby delcare it to be so.... I am satisfied that the estate is a trust eastate and hereby delcare it to be so.... While the Petitioner claims that the property belongs to Lord Jagannath of puri and there was no finding in the order u/s 25 of the Act, in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Endowments in this proceeding, it has been claimed: That although property recorded in the name of Jagannath Mohaprabhu one Ramanarayan Das has been shown to be marfatdar in the Record-of-Rights of the year 1899, In fact the presiding Deity of the Khaki Akhada Math is also Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu. It cannot be said that Lord Jagannath of Puri is the owner of the lands or that it is the Amrutmonohi property as stated in para 3 of the writ petition. We are not impressed with this contention in the Court affidavit. The presumption arising from the Record-of-rights about the character of the land further supported by the subsequent order of the Tribunal under the Estates Abolition Act has not been rebutted and we must, therefore, proceed on the assumption that the property is really Amrutmonohi. From the Settlement reports particularly Dalziel's report, "Amrutmonohi"has been referred to as property of Lord Jagannath. To the same effect is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs. Surajnarayan Dass and Another. In G.C. Praharaj's Bhasakosh, 'Amrutmonohi' has also been referred to as the property dedicated for the seva of Lord Jagannath of Puri. We, therefore, hold that the property in dispute is Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath of Puri. The next question for consideration is as to whether because the property is Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath, the Endowment Act or the Sri Jagannath Temple Act of 1954 (Act of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Temple Act") would apply to the property. u/s 2(1) of the Temple Act, it has been provided thus: The provisions of the Orissa. Hindu Religious Endowments Act; 1955 shall cease to apply toe the said temple except with respect to actions taken, things done and contributions levied and the same shall be deemed to have been validly taken, done and levied as if this Act had not been passed: rovided.... Hindu Religious Endowments Act; 1955 shall cease to apply toe the said temple except with respect to actions taken, things done and contributions levied and the same shall be deemed to have been validly taken, done and levied as if this Act had not been passed: rovided.... "Endowment" has been defined u/s 2(a) of the Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Administration' Ace') as meaning: ...all 'property' belonging to or given or endowed for, the support of the Temple or given or endowed for the performance of any service including the service of offerings to the deity or charity connected therewith and includes the institution concerned and also the premises thereof, but does not include gifts of property made as personal gifts to the Sevak, Pujari or other employee of the Temple; Explanation-Any gift, inam or Maufi or Shebait or Jagir, granted to a Sevak, Pujari or other employee of the Temple or to any other person for the performance of and service including the service of offerings to the deity or charity in or connected with the Temple shall not be deemed to be a personal gift to the said Sevak, Pujari or other employee but' shall be deemed to bean endowment. Section 3 of the Temple Act provides: The Puri Sri Jagannath Temple (Administration) Act, 1952 shall be deemed to be a part of this Act. The definition of 'Endowment"in the Administration Act, therefore, is applicable to the Temple Act. Section 33 of the Temple Act provides: (1) The Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties including the Ratna Bhandar and funds and jewelleries, records, documents and other assets belonging to Temple. The definition of 'Endowment"in the Administration Act, therefore, is applicable to the Temple Act. Section 33 of the Temple Act provides: (1) The Committee shall be entitled to take and be in possession of all movable and immovable properties including the Ratna Bhandar and funds and jewelleries, records, documents and other assets belonging to Temple. (2) If in obtaining such possession, the Committee or any person authorised in this behalf of the Committee is resisted or obstructed by anyone it may make a requisition in the prescribed form to any Magistrate of the first class within whose jurisdiction any such property is situated to deliver its possession to the Committee, on receipt of the requisition the Magistrate shall hold a summary enquiry into the facts of the case and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause shall comply with the said requisition; and in exercising the powers under this section the Magistrate shall be guided by the rules made under this Act. A provision in the pattern of Section 25 of the Act has thus been made in the Temple Act. The Petitioner's contention is that the property in question is covered by the definition of "Endowment"in the Temple Act and, therefore, the revisions of the Act have no application In regard to such property. The impugned order of the Commissioner is, therefore, an act without jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Mohanty appearing for the Commissioner contends that even on our holding that the property is Amrutmonohi of Lord Jagannath, it would only follow that Lord Jagannath is entitled to the seva, but the property would still vest in the Math and the Act, would apply if an unauthorised alienation is made of the interest of the Math in such property. He relies on observaitions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahant Shri Srinivasa Ramanuj Das Vs. Surajnarayan Dass and Another. At page 265 of the report, Raghubar Dayal, J. who spoke for the Court said: We may now consider the properties in Schedule kha said to be the Amrutamanohi properties of Lord Jagannath and held by the Plaintiff (Mahant) as marfatdar. Surajnarayan Dass and Another. At page 265 of the report, Raghubar Dayal, J. who spoke for the Court said: We may now consider the properties in Schedule kha said to be the Amrutamanohi properties of Lord Jagannath and held by the Plaintiff (Mahant) as marfatdar. The Plaintiff alleges that these properties were acquired either by purchase or 'karyadan' or by way of gift subject to a charge of some offering to Lord Jagannath which depended upon the individual judgment and discretion of the Plaintiff and that the public had no concern with the enjoyment or management of the usufruct thereof. The Gazetteer makes a reference to such properties and states: Both Saiva and Vaishnava Maths exist in Puri. The lands of the latter are known as Amrutrnanohi (literally nectar food), because they were given with the intention that the proceeds thereof should be spent in offering bhoga before Jagannath and that the Mahaprasad thus obtained should be distributed among pilgrims, beggars and ascetics they are distinct from the Amrutmanohi lands of the Temple itself which are under the superintendence of the Raja. This statement makes it clear that lands endowed to the temple of Lord Jagannath are distinct from the lands or property endowed to the Vaishnava Maths for the purpose of utilising the proceeds of those properties for offering bhoga before Lord Jagannath and the subsequent distribution of that Mahaprasad among pilgrims, beggars and ascetics, presumably visiting the Math, or approaching its authorities for a portion of the Mahaprasad. The mere fact that the proceeds of the properties were to be so used, would not justify the conclusion that these properties were not endowed to the Maths but were endowed to the temple of Lord Jagannath. Properties endowed to the temple of Lord Jagannath were, according to this statement, in the Gazetteer, not under the superintendence of any Math or Mahant but under the superintence of the Raja of Puri himself. As already stated, these Amrit Manohi properties are properties which are endowed to the Math by the devotees for a particular service, which is done to Lord Jagannath by the Mahant on behalf of the Math. The properties are therefore properties endowed to the Math and not merely gifted to the Plaintiff or, as had been suggested, to Lord Jagannath. As already stated, these Amrit Manohi properties are properties which are endowed to the Math by the devotees for a particular service, which is done to Lord Jagannath by the Mahant on behalf of the Math. The properties are therefore properties endowed to the Math and not merely gifted to the Plaintiff or, as had been suggested, to Lord Jagannath. The Supreme Court was examining the claim of the Plaintiff, the Mahant of the Emar Math, that the properties contained in Ka, Kha and Ga Schedules of the plaint were his personal properties and the provisions of the Act had no application thereto. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court was therefore, as to whether the property was personal or belonged to the Math. The dispute of the present nature, that is as to whether Amrutmonohi property really belonged to the Math so as to be governed by the Act or belonged to Lord Jagannath so as to come under the Temple Act was not for determination. 6. A Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu and Anr. v. Bhagaban Das and Anr. AIR 1951 Ori 235 , examined the incidences of Amrutmonohi property. The question for examination before the Division Bench was as to whether the Amrutmonohi property was absolute Devottar of Lord Jagannath or those properties had only been charged with service to the said Deity. Reversing the concurrent decree of the Courts below, this Court took the view that the properties constituted absolute Devottar and there was no warrant that the endowment to the Plaintiff-deity was only a portion of the income from the properties for the performance of a particular service and not the entire extent of the suit properties. It was further indicated that Amrutmonohi literally meant "food offering"and there was no warrant for indicating only a partial dedication. Another Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Endowments, Orissa v. Balabhadra Das and Anr. F.A. No. 19 of 1952-D/19-12-1959 disposed of on 19-12-1959, observed that: ...It is settled law that 'Amroutmonohi' property can be acquired by purchase subject to the charge with which it is burdened. and drew inspiration from the observations of the Calcutta High Court in the Case of Haidar Hussain Khan v. Faghfur Mirza 2 C.L.J. 57 for the said conclusion. Our finding, therefore, is that Amrutmonohi property is necessarily dedicated to Lord Jagannath of Puri. and drew inspiration from the observations of the Calcutta High Court in the Case of Haidar Hussain Khan v. Faghfur Mirza 2 C.L.J. 57 for the said conclusion. Our finding, therefore, is that Amrutmonohi property is necessarily dedicated to Lord Jagannath of Puri. Amrutmonohi is of two categories; one directly managed by the (sic) Administrator of the Deity's estate; and the other by any other person as Trustee for the performance of service of offering to the Deity. The Petitioner contends that the Math is only an institution in which the right of management vests but the property is dedicated to Lord Jagannath and, therefore, the explanation to the definition of Endowment appearing in the, said Acts 'is attracted; while Mr. Mohanty for the Commissioner contends that the Math has a substantial interest in the property and any unauthorised alienation under the Act can give rise to a proceeding u/s 25 thereof. 7. While disposing of the contention in regard to applicability of Section 19 of the Act, one of us in the case of Krushna Chandra Badapanda v. Iswar Karan and Ors. 36 (1970) C.L.T. 1257, observed: ...incidence of Amrutrnonohi came to be determined in this Court on more than one occasion and this Court has taken the view that Amrutmonohi leaves sufficient interest in the holder thereof and he is entitled to make alienations. Whoever takes the property on alienation receives it with the burden to which the property is subject for the purpose of the deity. But the alienation is not vitiated. If it is property of the Lord Jagannath, admittedly, the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act has no application and instead, Orissa Act 11 of 1954 would apply.... If the factual aspect had been examined by the Commissioner that whether in the grant in question the Math had any interest in entire proceeds were meant for the Deity had been determination would have peen convenient for us to dispose of the case. But in view of the fact that these aspects have not been gone into we are obliged to require the Commissioner to consider these aspects again. 8. Contention No. 2 : The Petitioner had taken lease of the property from the predecessor of opposite party No. 3. Anadi Charan, the lessor, as said to have died in 1951 as would appear from Annexure-2. The present proceeding is of 1969. 8. Contention No. 2 : The Petitioner had taken lease of the property from the predecessor of opposite party No. 3. Anadi Charan, the lessor, as said to have died in 1951 as would appear from Annexure-2. The present proceeding is of 1969. The Limitation Act of 1908 was repealed with effect from 1-1-1964. The provision regarding limitation under the new Act in Article 96 is slightly different from what it was under Article 134-B of the 1908 Act. Mr. Mahapatra for the Petitioner contends that even if the Endowment Act applied, the permanent lease in question being ab initio void for want of sanction u/s 59 of the Endowment Act of 1939, the Petitioner's possession became adverse and on account of more than 12 years' possession by the time the new Limitation Act came into force, the Petitioner had acquired a prescriptive title to the property. This is a matter which can only be examined after parties are allowed full opportunity of leading, evidence. Mr. Mohanty contends that since the impugned order is subjected to suit as specifically provided in Section 25 of the Act, we need riot interfere in the matter and we can leave it to the Petitioner to work out his right in the civil Court. However summary the proceeding may be, the Commissioner was bound to find out whether the property for which he was going to send a requisition for delivery thereof to the Deity continued to be the property of the Deity. It is only when the property is of the Deity and there has been an illegal alienation that jurisdiction vests in him to restore possession to the Deity in the Summary process provided u/s 25 of the Act. This aspect of the matter, therefore, can only be adequately disposed of by the Commissioner upon receiving evidence of parties. 9. Contention No. 3 : We shall now proceed to examine the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, The lease obtained by contentioner on 25-1-1950 certainly required sanction of the Commissioner u/s 58(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act of 1939 and admittedly no such sanction was taken. 9. Contention No. 3 : We shall now proceed to examine the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, The lease obtained by contentioner on 25-1-1950 certainly required sanction of the Commissioner u/s 58(1) of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act of 1939 and admittedly no such sanction was taken. That sub-section provided: No exchange, sale or mortgage and no lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property belonging to any math or temple or of any specific endowment attached to a math or temple shall be valid or operative unless it is necessary. Or beneficial to the math or temple and is sanctioned by the Commissioner and two persons, who shall be officers in the service of the Crown, appointed by the Provincial Government in this behalf. Section 19 of the later Act (Act 2 of 1952) does not provision any restrospective sanction. The alienation to be valid postulates a pre-existing sanction. In that view of the matter, we do not see how the sanction as such could be granted u/s 19 of the Act to cover the permanent lease in question. The entire proceeding including the final order manifestly is without jurisdiction. We must, therefore, quash the order dated 13-8-1970. (Annexure-A/I) passed by the Commissioner in O.P. No. 526 of 1959-60 purporting to be u/s 19 of the Act. 10. For the reasons already indicated, we also quash the impugned order u/s 25 of the Act and 'require the Commissioner to re-dispose of the matter in accordance with law and while disposing of the proceeding he shall provide full opportunity to all parties before him to place necessary materials for determination of the dispute in the line indicated by us. We make no order as to costs. K.B. Panda J. 11. I agree.