Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 727 (ORI)

PABITRA MOHAN PRADHAN v. STATE OF ORISSA

2009-09-14

I.M.QUDDUSI, SANJU PANDA

body2009
JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - This writ application has been filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the Opp. Parties to register the sale deed executed by Petitioner No. 2. 2. Earlier on 4.5.1999, this Court in OJC No. 14347 of 1998 directed the Commissioner of Endowments to execute the sale deed in favour of the successful bidder (Susant Kumar Mishra) in case he deposited the full amount before this Court within the stipulated time (three months from the date of that order). In case of his failure to deposit the same, the arrangement should be finalized with the second highest bidder (Giridhari Pradhan, the Petitioner in that writ application). The transfer should be subject to final outcome of the civil disputes regarding possession & nature of the tenancy as claimed by said Giridhari Pradhan. The possession should be handed over after execution of the sale deed. The amount deposited before this Court should be kept until the question of ownership as claimed by Shri Jagannath Temple & Radhakanta Math was finally settled. 3. The aforesaid Order Dated 4.5.1999 was passed considering the fact that the Manager, Radhakanta Math moved the Commissioner of Endowments for grant of permission to sell the land with a view to utilizing the money for the benefit of the Math & to eradicate the problems created by the encroachers. While the said application was pending, one Sadasiva Patra filed an application u/s 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1951 to grant permission to sell the land for the said purpose. Giridhari Pradhan objected to the above application on the ground that he was in possession of a part of the land & litigation is going on regarding his tenancy & possession. He also offered to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 15,00,000 per acre in respect of Ac.2.497 decimals of land & to pay at half of the rate for the rest Ac.1.443 decimals of land, in total measuring an area Ac.4.400 decimals. OJC Nos. 14347, 23826, 12542 & 13149 of 1998 & 2998 of 1999 filed by those persons were heard together & disposed of by this Court by the aforesaid Order Dated 4.5. 1999. 4. OJC Nos. 14347, 23826, 12542 & 13149 of 1998 & 2998 of 1999 filed by those persons were heard together & disposed of by this Court by the aforesaid Order Dated 4.5. 1999. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that after the order was passed by this Court on 4.5.1999, said Susanta Kumar Mishra deposited the entire amount within the stipulated time as directed by this Court. He, in his turn, alienated part of the property in favour of the present Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Prativa Patfraik by registered sale deed Nos. 1235 dated 1.1.2000 & 4570 dated 10.12.1999 vide Annexures-2 & 3 respectively. Prativa Patnaik, in her turn, in order to sell the said land made an agreement with Petitioner No. 1. She also accepted the consideration amount & executed a Power-of-Attorney in favour of one Smt. Manisha Pradhan, the wife of Petitioner No. 1, to execute the sale deed & see the legal procedure in respect of her purchased property. Accordingly, the Petitioners approached the District Sub-Registrar, Puri for registration of the sale deed in favour of Petitioner No. 1, but the authority refused to register the same on the ground that the property belongs to Lord Jagannath. Hence, this writ application. 5. Opposite Party Nos.2 & 3 have filed their counter stating therein that the land in question belongs to Lord Jagannath Bije at Shree Purusottam Khetra.The sale deed was not executed either by the Administrative Officer or anybody on behalf of Lord Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri. Therefore, the same could not be registered. The Administrator of the Jagannath Temple, Puri in his letter No. 4181 dated 3.4.2004 intimated the Joint Inspector General of Registration, Orissa that the disputed property belongs to Lord Jagannath. Nobody can execute the sale deed other than the Administrator or any officer authorized by him in writing for the said purpose. Therefore, as the Administrator of Sri Jagannath Mahapravu Bije at Puri has not executed the sale deed in favour of Petitioner No. 2, he has no right to alienate the said property. 6. We have perused the aforesaid Order Dated 4.5.1999 passed by this Court in OJC Nos. 14347, 23826, 12542 & 13149 of 1998 & 2998 of 1999 vide Annexure-1 to the present writ application & thereafter the sale deed executed in favour of Petitioner No. 2 by the auction purchaser. 6. We have perused the aforesaid Order Dated 4.5.1999 passed by this Court in OJC Nos. 14347, 23826, 12542 & 13149 of 1998 & 2998 of 1999 vide Annexure-1 to the present writ application & thereafter the sale deed executed in favour of Petitioner No. 2 by the auction purchaser. In the said order, this Court specifically directed the Commissioner of Endowments to execute the sale deed. The amount already received by the Math & the amount offered by Susanta shall be deposited with this Court which shall be kept until the question of ownership as claimed by Shri Jagannath Temple & Radhakanta Math was finally settled. So at this point, it cannot be decided who is the owner of the property, as the dispute regarding the ownership of the property is still pending. 7. Further, it appears from the sale deed vide Annexure-2 that Petitioner No. 2 purchased the land from Sahadeb Patra who styled himself as the Manager of Radhakanta Math representing Sri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri. Further, it reveals that as per the direction of this Court on 4.5.1999, Susanta Kumar Mishra being the highest bidder, deposited the amount. The Commissioner of Endowments was to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the land. The Commissioner of Endowments vide his Office Memo No 11399/ 1348-P(M) dated 18.8.1999 authorised the vendor Sahadeba Patra who executed the sale deed in favour of the present Petitioner No. 2 & also the highest bidder Susanta Kumar Mishra authorized his vendor to execute the sale deed in favour of the persons identified by him. He identified the purchaser Smt. Prativa Patnaik. Accordingly, the sale deed was executed. Since, Petitioner No. 2, who purchased the property in question from the Court auction-purchaser Susanta Kumar Mishra & was in possession of the property, in her turn, wanted to alienate the said property for her legal interest. The Court auction & the aforesaid transfer were subject to the final outcome of the civil disputes regarding the possession & nature of tenancy as claimed by Giridhari Pradhan. Further, the question of ownership of the property as claimed by the Jagannath Temple & Radhakanta Matha is yet to be settled & the amount deposited before this Court will be received by the said successful party. 8. Further, the question of ownership of the property as claimed by the Jagannath Temple & Radhakanta Matha is yet to be settled & the amount deposited before this Court will be received by the said successful party. 8. In order to protect the interest of the parties & to get higher price, this Court by Order Dated 4.5.1999 put the property to auction & Petitioner No. 2 purchased the property in the year 1999. It is well settled that no body will suffer on the act of the Court. The Court cannot confer a favour on one, subject to the injury & damage of others. This Court's Order Dated 4.5.1999 passed in OJC No. 14347 of 1998 was also final as the same has not been challenged in the higher forum. 9. Therefore, this Court directs the District Sub-Registrar, Puri to consider the prayer of the Petitioners & verify all the records. If he is satisfied that Petitioner No. 2 purchased the property from the vendor who had purchased the property in Court auction, he shall take further action in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ application is disposed of. No costs. I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J. I agree.